[mcrespo71]

Tito,

Thanks for that update about the dACK internal changes.  This is an interesting development and I was very happy to see that the reference system they used to "voice" the dACK was the CEC TL 1-X Belt Drive transport.  If I bought the dACK, it would be driven by a Parasound Belt Drive CDP that is sourced by CEC, so I'm glad to see that, to the designers at least, this transport works synergestically with the dACK.  I definitely want to hear the dACK in my system.  Perhaps we need to have a mini-test at my apartment b/4 the next audiocircle meeting.  I DON'T THINK I CAN WAIT UNTIL THEN TO HEAR IT IN MY SYSTEM!

Michael

[tmij]

Please respect the request made by Chris and delete this portion. "We...would appreciate that you not share this information with the general public until the website has been updated."

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Sa-dono. Chris, please accept my apologies for disclosing any information not meant for public release. In my excitement, I didn't read through the notice, I'm sorry.

[JoshK]

Tmij (is it ok to call you by your first name now that I met you?),

Great review, very good writing making it entertaining to read as well as detailed in your testing method.   I wonder (not to knock anything from your results as I have no partiality here) if the reason why the tubedac did better latter was due to a slow warm up of the tubes?  Just a thought but maybe returning to an earlier track might have made that clear.

Again, great review!

[JoshK]

It still had everything I liked about it plus extended lows and more detailed less roll off highs.

If this is the case then with the cap replacement this DAC is a nobrainer for the price and even beyond this price!   It had a lot of things I loved, with the exception of the perceived impact (due impart to rolled off bass).

[BradJudy]

Thanks to all for the kind words!

I inverted channels (instead of phase) on one input so that I could play the same channel from the source through both speakers at the same time. Listening in mono, theoretically, the sound should come from one spot in the center.

Actually, since one of the DACs (TubeDAC) inverts phase, you would not get the effect of sound coming from the center if you had both speakers playing the same channel at once unless you changed the phase of one of them.  In fact, it sound have sounded poor with both speakers playing the same channel and one with inverted phase on the other - cancelling each other out.  

This would have been corrected in your setup by inverting the phase at the speaker connections on the channel running the TubeDAC.  Because of the setup you used (a very thoughtful one) you would have had to switch the speaker phase as you switched things around.  I know Scott's website asks people to take this into account when comparing DACs and it's a pain to deal with.  The key problem being that if you have your setup arranged properly to deal with the room, it will not sound right using that DAC because the nulls will be reversed.

[tmij]

Tmij (is it ok to call you by your first name now that I met you?)

Please do, Josh, and thanks for the compliment.

I wonder (not to knock anything from your results as I have no partiality here) if the reason why the tubedac did better latter was due to a slow warm up of the tubes?  Just a thought but maybe returning to an earlier track might have made that clear.

It's quite possible that the TubeDac+ sound improved in the latter tracks as testing was done a few minutes after a "cold start." Since I don't have to return the TubeDac+ until this weekend, I might compare the same earlier tracks again but first let the TubeDac+ warm up a bit. More info towards the end of the week.

Actually, since one of the DACs (TubeDAC) inverts phase, you would not get the effect of sound coming from the center if you had both speakers playing the same channel at once unless you changed the phase of one of them.  In fact, it sound have sounded poor with both speakers playing the same channel and one with inverted phase on the other - cancelling each other out.

That's true, I missed taking the TubeDac's inverted phase into account. I'll see to this if I get to compare them again. Thanks!

[mcrespo71]

Ok, I can now add something to this comparison.  I listened to both the Tube Dac and dACK a little last night in Tito's system, which I believe he listed most of in his original review.  The dACK was clearer with nice tone, but the Tube Dac also sounded very nice from the few minutes I heard it.  The Tube Dac's tube was a bit microphonic, but it had some nice body to add to the vocals that the dACK was not as astute at.  However, there was definitely more sibilance when listening through the Tube Dac.  However, we only did little comparisons between the dacs last night because my main reason for going over to Tito's was to help him set up his GORGEOUS VPI SCOUT turntable.  I can't wait till he get's his phono stage to hear the VPI in all it's glory.  It's very well built.

Today, Tito stopped by at my apartment (we are lucky and only live about a mile from each other in downtown NYC) and we compared the two in my system.  I'll post it here:

Conrad Johnson PV 12A
VTL MB 125
Rega Planar 25
Grado Platinum Reference Moving Iron Cartridge
Rotel Tuner
Parasound CDP 2000 belt drive CD Player
Monster HTS 3500
JPS Labs Digital AC
MIT 750 + II spkr cable
MIT 330 + II interconnect 2 pairs
MIT Terminator 5 interconnect 1 pair
3 Bright Stars Sand Boxes and 1 Air Mass
Vibrapods
BDR CONES #3's and #4's
Nitty Gritty record machine
THE REFERENCE 3A MM DE CAPO I'S w/Osiris Stands

Tito brought over Scott Nixon's digital cable- not sure if it has a name- Tito?

In the context of my system, it wasn't even close.  The dACK killed the Tube Dac +!!!  Spacing, soundstage, purity of tone, and, most importantly, the organization and continuousness of the sound that came out of the dACK completely overwhelmed the Tube Dac + in my system.  I'd say that my Parasound Belt Drive CD Player sounded better as a one box player than it did as a transport driving the Tube Dac +.  The Parasound has some things going for it over both dacs- more extended highs and a bit more impact in the bass, but after hearing the dACK in my system, it just didn't really sound as compelling and I think it has more to do with the continuousness of the dACK's sound that is just, for lack of a better word, musical.  It honestly just sounds right in the same sort of way vinyl does in my system, which is to say it portrays the full musical event as a continuous whole as opposed to little parts that make up the audiophile checklist but doesn't sound a damn thing like live music in an acoustic space.  My system is certainly voiced for that, as I am unabashedly a music lover first and use gear to bring me closer to the essence of the performance.  I could care less if I hear the 3rd row violinist farting while he's playing in the symphony- the dACK doesn't give you that at all.  In fact, my whole system doesn't give you that.  However, what the dACK does is just sound like music so that, as Tito said, "you can just sit back and enjoy the music because there is nothing to deconstruct- it just sounds right."  That is the essence of this hobby for me and why I will be buying the updated dACk when it releases in November.  

Thanks for allowing me to demo both dacs in my system, Tito!!!!  

Sorry, I don't have a digital camera, so no "fight" pictures will be going up!

[BradJudy]

mcrespo71,

Did you reverse the phase on your speakers when using the TubeDAC?

[Hantra]

Did you reverse the phase on your speakers when using the TubeDAC?

That's exactly what I was wondering.  

The Tube Dac's tube was a bit microphonic.

I find this hard to believe since the tube is really just a buffer. . . Maybe something else going on with the phase as Brad suggested. .

It honestly just sounds right in the same sort of way vinyl does in my system, which is to say it portrays the full musical event as a continuous whole as opposed to little parts that make up the audiophile checklist but doesn't sound a damn thing like live music in an acoustic space.

This is a good quote.  As a matter of fact, my review of the Nixon DAC says about the SAME thing.  I think you really do have a phase issue.  See if you can get it over there again and double check.

[mcrespo71]

Yep, we did reverse phase on the Tube Dac +.  We first listened to it and I thought it was broken the soundstage sounded so small.  Tito realized that we didn't reverse phase so we went ahead and reversed phase.  The sound improved when we reversed phase, but still not enough to make it competitive with the dACK in my system.  That said, I would have had a hard time picking the dACK over the Tube Dac + in Tito's system- they really were very close in sound.  I thought the Tube Dac + sounded very good in Tito's system, so my review isn't really an outright slam on the Tube Dac +.  Nonetheless, in MY SYSTEM, the dACK had some sort of strange synergy that just coupled perfecty with my gear.  It just goes to show you always need to try stuff in your own system because that's the only way you can be sure it meshes.

The microphonics I heard witht the Tube Dac + also happened when I was at Tito's apartment listening to it.  We took the Tube Dac + out of Tito's system and the ringing went away.  Right when we hooked up the Tube Dac + to my transport the ringing started.  If the tube is a buffer, do you guys have any idea why this was happening?  Could the Tube Dac + we were listening to be broken?

Michael

[Danny Richie]

I sent tmij out some Sonicaps earlier this week for his dAck.

You guys let me know what you think when he has them in and burned in.

[Hantra]

Michael:

I HAVE to ask some questions. . .

First off, is THIS the way you hooked it up at your place?



I couldn't even dream up a worse way to hook up two DAC's for a "shootout".  I am not sure who told you to do this, but it is absolutely horrible.  

First off, Tito said:

I used a Y on the digital out. Since my analog ICs are low-grade and el-cheapo respectively, I also used one half of each pair through each DAC (eliminating the cable variable).

A Y CABLE?  On a DIGITAL out?  This is amazing.  Digital expects to see a 75 Ohm load, and probably one of the worst things you could do besides suspending the DAC with a huge electromagnet, upside-down, in a bowl of Sprite, is hook up a DAC for critical listening using a Y cable on the digital out.  

The next worst thing you could do is probably use DIFFERENT interconnects on each channel.  I am hoping Michael that you didn't do the same.  The Homegrown is good stuff, but the fatty boomblatty cables that came WITH your clock radio are probably not a good mix.  

I'd like to see these tests again with real world connections.  

Also, you guys DO know that swapping PHASE does not mean swapping L to R channel for R to L, right?  It seems in the diagram that's how it was hooked up.

I'm not trying to be a pain, but I just sat down and re-read this review after reading Michael's comments, and I must have been half-asleep the first time I read it.  Too many things were WRONG with this review NOT to do it again the right way.

Also, when comparing a non-oversampling DAC without a filter, it's better to compare it to a similar DAC.  The TubeDAC+ does add a filter, like I said earlier, and I don't like it as much as my regualr TubeDAC.

L8r,

B

[mcrespo71]

couldn't even dream up a worse way to hook up two DAC's for a "shootout". I am not sure who told you to do this, but it is absolutely horrible.

Nope, that "horrible" setup for the Dac shoot out was in Tito's system, which is where the Tube Dac + sounded very good!    

My Conrad Johnson preamp doesn't have separate volume controls or input selectors, so I hooked both Dacs up the same way.  I unhooked the MIT 330 + II interconnects from my one box CD player and plugged them into each respective DAC.  I used Scott Nixon's digital cable to hook each DAC to my Parasound Belt Drive CD Player.  Just so I am clear here, I only had one DAC hooked up at a time, so if I was listening to the dACK, then nothing was plugged into the Tube Dac + or vice versa.  The Tube Dac + was always powered up, though, and the EXACT same interconnects and digital cable was used for each DAC.  We made sure to match the output level for each DAC using the same CD piece (a Chesky jazz piece and a Reference Recordings classical piece) and a Radio Shack SPL meter.  

   

A Y CABLE? On a DIGITAL out? This is amazing. Digital expects to see a 75 Ohm load, and probably one of the worst things you could do besides suspending the DAC with a huge electromagnet, upside-down, in a bowl of Sprite, is hook up a DAC for critical listening using a Y cable on the digital out.

The next worst thing you could do is probably use DIFFERENT interconnects on each channel. I am hoping Michael that you didn't do the same. The Homegrown is good stuff, but the fatty boomblatty cables that came WITH your clock radio are probably not a good mix.  

Nope, this was in Tito's set up- not mine.  I used the same A-B approach I always do for equipment- same exact ancillaries, same output level, and same musical pieces for comparison.  It's interesting that despite all these broken rules for set up that the Tube Dac + clearly was more synergestic in his system.

I'd like to see these tests again with real world connections.

I'd like to think that a $300 pair of MIT interconnects and Scott Nixon's digital cable, which I am making the assumption works well with the Tube Dac +, qualify as real world connections.

Also, you guys DO know that swapping PHASE does not mean swapping L to R channel for R to L, right? It seems in the diagram that's how it was hooked up.

In my system, my CJ preamp also inverts phase, so I have to wire my speakers out of phase to put the system back in phase.  We listened to the Tube Dac + with the speakers wired out of phase and wired in phase.  The Tube Dac + sounded better when we wired the speakers to be in phase, but in either situation, it was not as good as the dACK IN MY SYSTEM.

Also, when comparing a non-oversampling DAC without a filter, it's better to compare it to a similar DAC. The TubeDAC+ does add a filter, like I said earlier, and I don't like it as much as my regualr TubeDAC.

I just compared what was brought over, but that statement doesn't really make sense to me.  I could care less about the technology used (i.e., oversampling, non-oversampling, or upsampling) in a DAC;  either it sounds good or it doesn't in my gear.  I would imagine that Scott Nixon believes either of his Tube Dac's could be compared to ANY type of DAC and should sound great.  To limit a DAC's comparison group to the exact same type of design philosophy seems myopic to me.  If I can hook up oversampling, non-oversampling, or upsamplers to my transport, shouldn't I just try them all out and see what sounds best?

[Hantra]

Michael:

I'm sorry you feel the need to defend your tests.  I am merely questioning the methodology since your friend clearly had setup issues.  I find it interesting that EITHER DAC sounded good in his setup the way it was wired.

B

[audiojerry]

Interesting discussion.
mcrespo71, I think you're defending yourself well, but it looks like you encountering lots of resistance
                     
Unfortunately, when you post outcomes about a popular piece of gear, and it defies others' viewpoints, your credibility gets challenged.  

Based on what I've read, your system seemed to have better resolution and was capable of exposing differences better than Tito's. The way the comparison was done at Tito's, it looked like things would end up sounding more similar than different with neither sounding its best, no offense to Tito.
 
mcrespo71, what does that stand for?

[Hantra]

when you post outcomes about a popular piece of gear, and it defies others' viewpoints, your credibility gets challenged.

Ohh come off it Jerry. . .  I am not challenging his credibility, I am challenging THIS:



And what inexpensive DAC is MORE popular here now than the aCK?  So please. . Do us a favor and have a nice warm cup of. . .

Well, you know. . .


B

[audiojerry]

have a nice warm cup of. . .CHILI?
Thanks, I think I will  It's cold here in Wisconsin

I wasn't trying to point fingers, but you are right about the dACK being very popular too. I bet that if someone posted a review that said the Nixon dack blew away the dACK, his credibility would be challenged also.

That's ok, because it requires the poster to defend himself and substantiate his findings, but sometimes it seems like it is pointless.

[mcrespo71]

I'm sorry you feel the need to defend your tests.

I was just answering the questions you asked me and attempting to provide some way to delineate how my set up was different from Tito's.  Since you obviously had so many problems with his setup for the comparison, I wanted to disabuse you of the notion that I was using the same methodology to test these two dacs.

[mcrespo71]

mcrespo71 stands for Michael Crespo born 1971.

[nathanm]

Now, I'm waiting for the comments about the connection arrangement totally invalidating the review. He used switches and different cables, shouldn't he be villified? Come on guys, be fair! Anyone? Anyone? (kidding)

Am I a prophet or what?  Well, it wasn't too hard as it already happened before. (Starring Hantra as Pez)

Don't listen to this B.S. tmij, there's nothing wrong with your connection diagram.  This is where the Measurements Are Bullshit crowd suddenly does an about face and gets ultra objective and starts splitting hairs over connection procedure and other infinitesimal nonsense.  Ridiculous, and laughable.