ULN-8 shootouts: Next!

[kana813]

Andrew -

 

Amarra is the only playback software I've tried other than iTunes and SqueezeCenter.

 

Best PC playback I've heard was with an ART Legato Asynchronous USB to SPDIF Converter connected to my wife's Macbook. I didn't have the Legato when I tested Amarra. I returned the iLOK for a refund.

 

My only experience with DSP Quattro, Peak Pro XT, soundBlade and Wave Editor, are the sample files Barry posted earlier this year.

 

I don't know which is which, but they all sounded different.

 

Dan

 

[bdiament]

Hi Dan,

 

Finally made it to the box today and found the DVD you sent of the four test files. Thank you so much for your kindness.

 

Would like to communicate off list. Please send me an email message so I know where to reach you. (You can use a "Contact" page on either of my sites to reach me.)

 

Thank you again.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

 

[sjohnson]

The Computer Audiophile site and discussions are very informative and helpful. My thanks to Chris and those who are sharing.

 

Just joining here for the first time I apologize in advance if I missed this in earlier posts but I am wondering if the ULN-8 will drive an amplifier directly with good results. My goal is the DAC will do double duty for both recording/mastering and for 2 channel critical listening and, from what I can tell so far, for my needs the MH ULN-8 seems like a no brainer. The Berkeley DAC reportedly does a good job of driving an amp directly but then again is only 2 channels and without A to D. It would be nice to remove one more set of cables and the preamp if there is minimal compromise or even benefit. My existing preamp, a MBL 6010D, does a nice job of staying out of the way and driving the amps but if I can get by without the need for other devices in this system I could fund other audio things. And in that regard when I get the DAC and music server on board the sale of my reference redbook player will fund things too :-)

 

Any information, thoughts, or impressions on this are appreciated.

 

Regards,

Steve

 

[ackcheng]

I think it probably. I has and output impedance of 50 ohms only! and a very high gain!

 

[bdiament]

Hi Steve,

 

Yes, the ULN-8 can drive an amp directly and you can use its front panel volume control (after initial setup with a Mac).

 

One nice feature is the meters on the right side of the front panel will temporarily change to a numeric display when you use the volume control.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[sjohnson]

Hi Barry,

 

Thanks for the reply. It's good to know the direct capability and the numeric display feature is there. I'll be using a MacPro for the audio work and for running the music server interface so the flexibility of this device fits my needs very well. The real requirement though is no compromise sound quality so I'm really looking forward to hearing it on both playback and recording.

 

It sounds like it will be a good idea to build my own analog and digital cables to work with the DB25 connectors and TRS analog out. I could probably have Kubala-Sosna rework my balanced ICs to have TRS balanced on the ULN-8 end for connecting the amps but there may be better options to consider. For digital IO I can rework some on hand AES cable and/or utilize format converters for spdif if needed.

 

Regardless, I'm looking forward to getting a unit in hand.

 

Thanks again and best regards,

 

Steve

 

[sjohnson]

Ackcheng,

 

Thanks I appreciate the information. I'm getting out of my league technically on impedance matching etc but I see my current preamp has a specified output impedance of 100 ohms so the ULN-8 is of course half that where I gather lower is better. And then with the high gain should be able to drive the amps adequately. The sonic 'proof' will be in the listening so I can hang on to the preamp and compare with and without the preamp and if it's better sounding with the preamp then keep it in the system.

 

The ULN-8 specs indicate the monitor output is controlled in the analog domain so there shouldn't be undesirable volume control effects in the digital side of things. How it sounds direct to the amps I gather will then depend a lot on how well the analog control is implemented. That may be an oversimplification but may at least be a part of the equation. It's hard to see how I could go wrong with getting this unit as it seems really strong across the board.

 

Best regards,

 

Steve

 

[bdiament]

Hi Steve,

 

I look forward to hearing of your experience when you've auditioned a ULN-8.

(In some ways, I feel more audiophiles would respect -perhaps understand- the magnitude of the achievement if Metric Halo added a zero at the end of the price.)

 

I made my own DB25 adapters too, so I could use cables of my choice. I also didn't require eight connections in every situation, so I made some adapters with four, others with two, etc.

 

There are photos of two of them on my site:

1. The unbalanced line out adapter (DB25 to female RCA) at: www.barrydiamentaudio.com/zadapter1.jpg

2. One with four XLR inputs to DB25 at:

www.barrydiamentaudio.com/zadapter2.jpg

 

As an A-D and mic preamps, using the built-in Record Panel software, be prepared to hear exactly what your mics (and mic cables) sound like. I see the phrase being used elsewhere nowadays but I used it before when I sent some feedback to Metric Halo years ago, in early beta tests of the ULN-8. After trying it at 192k (where other units seemed to get more jittery), I wrote:

"For the first time in my experience, the recorder is effectively out of the equation and it feels like I'm listening directly to my mic feeds."

 

I hope you have a similar experience.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[ackcheng]

Regarding the volume control in ULN-8. It seems that it is using PGA2311 which is not strictly analog

 

http://www.thesounddesign.com/MIO/MIO.htm

 

While some audiophiles in diyaudio.com regard it not as good as passive attenuator, I think it is the implementation that counts. I suppoat if it doesn't use the internal opamp, PGA2311 should sound quite good.

 

 

 

[bdiament]

I completely agree it is the implementation that counts.

 

I often see folks expressing concern about the DAC chip or other individual parts and think to myself, "It doesn't matter if they use the 'best' DAC chip (whatever *that* is) in the Universe. That will not guarantee the end result won't be terrible." I'm sure many of us have heard plenty of examples of devices created with great parts that in the end, don't sound so great.

 

Having heard and used the ULN-8 for several years now and having compared it to a host of other "contenders" (some of which are widely touted in many quarters) and having heard it -for my ears- shame most of them and simply beat the rest, I personally don't care what Metric Halo used inside. All I care about is what happens when I play music through it. And what happens is I smile. A lot.

 

Just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Abstraction]

The uln-8 has a lot of features that are not needed, when used exclusively for playback. How different are the digital in / audio out paths in uln-8 and uln-2, and how different do they sound?

 

[bdiament]

Hi Abstraction,

 

Both the ULN-2 and the ULN-8 were designed as professional devices for use in recording, mixing (live and studio) and a host of other features in addition to their function as D-A converter for playback.

 

From this perspective, both have "a lot of features that are not needed" for simple playback. That said and good as the ULN-2 is (an understatement), they are two different machines. Aside from the ULN-8's 192k capability, the digital and analog stages are different, the clocking is different and the resulting sound is different.

 

One area where the ULN-8 excels is that it is flat, not merely in frequency but in *phase*, from just above DC to Nyquist. As a consequence, one of the first things many listeners notice is its bass quality and just how real it sounds compared to other DACs.

 

I could enumerate other areas where I hear differences but ultimately the best way for any listener to know if and by how much these are important to them, is to audition both devices.

 

If I couldn't have my ULN-8, I would very happily live with my ULN-2 and not look back. In fact, my feeling is before any "comers" try to take on the ULN-8 (so far in my experience, the easy winner in every test, blind or sighted), they should show their stuff against a ULN-2 - I think the '2 is THAT good. (But for my ears, the '8 is in a class all by itself.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Voltron]

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about judging gear, Barry, and often wonder why so many people get hung up with exactly what is inside a component over how it ultimately sounds/performs. Good implementation and overall design mean more than the letter designation on a given slab of silicon.

 

I really love my Amarra Model 4/ULN-8 and also agree with the praise you give it. You add a world of knowledge and experience I do not have, so your thoughts and impressions are very valuable to this board. Thanks for sharing them so freely, and thanks for all the tips on needle-dropping that you share here and moreso on the Hoffman forums. I have been doing 24/176.4 drops with SoundBlade on my system and think that they sound incredible. My buddy jp11801 uses his Sonic 302/ULN-2 to great effect as well, so I am incredibly impressed with the Metric Halo gear and gratified to see it spreading to audiophiles in the know.

 

Cheers, Al

 

[machinehead]

It really isn't a scientific comparison as the BADA is either fed a signal from the '8 or the Weiss unit, and never a signal straight from the source.

 

It is fair to say you are comparing the '8 to a combination of the Weiss and BADA, or the '8 and BADA to the '8.

 

[cfmsp]

 

"It really isn't a scientific comparison as the BADA is either fed a signal from the '8 or the Weiss unit, and never a signal straight from the source."

 

Good point, the Alpha prefers a Lynx card as its 'source', since it cannot connect directly to most modern computers (without a soundcard).

 

I'm curious how you believe the BADA was disadvantaged due to being fed signals from such high quality sources.

 

Are you suggesting that the Lynx might provide a better AES/EBU signal than the Weiss and the ULN-8?

 

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[machinehead]

Clay as usual a somewhat inflammatory response.

 

I am not suggesting that the Weiss or ULN would hinder the BADA.

 

I am stating that it is not a scientific comparison, you quoted my statement,

I guess you didn't read it.

 

A scientific comparison would be changing only 1 variable.

Since 2 variables were changed, then it is an apples and oranges comparison.

 

 

 

[machinehead]

I am not suggesting anything, I am merely stating a fact. The BADA comparison adds one extra piece

of equipment in the signal path with each of the BADA tests, which is different than either of the Firewire fed tests.

 

[bdiament]

Hi machinehead,

 

Your point is a valid one as far as a direct connection being more "scientific".

 

I *did* start my post with:

"Finally got to compare the ULN-8 with a Berkeley the other evening.

My feelings? With the ULN-8 in other comparisons I've done, I've been here before:

I don't fully trust the comparison yet and am trying to see if something I did put the Berkeley at an unfair disadvantage."

 

I wonder what losses you feel might have been engendered by feeding the BADA from the AES output of the ULN-8 or that of the DAC2?

 

On the ULN-8, at least, it is effectively a pass through. I would imagine the same is true for the DAC2.

How do you feel this might differ from say, feeding the BADA from the AES output of a disc transport?

 

I ended my first post with:

"I hope to set up a "rematch", in an effort to give the BADA (and any other comer) every opportunity to best the '8... if it can."

 

I'd be very curious to see if the results differ or if in fact, the only "disadvantage" the BADA and other DACs face is simply being put up against the ULN-8.

 

By the way, have you heard a ULN-8?

I'd be curious about your experience, particularly in comparing it with other DACs.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[machinehead]

You and clay are not getting my point, I don't *feel* or *suggest* anything, I don't know

if the pass through is good or not, I am merely stating the facts, it is not an apples to apple comparison.

 

I am sure the ULN and Weiss sound amazing, I hold nothing against them, I would welcome one

in my system as much as my BADA.

 

I find it strange that as audiophiles, who will debate OFC and single crystal copper in wires, that it

suddenly does seem feasible that passing a signal through a convert won't change the sound.

 

Enough said on my part.

 

I do appreciate your comparison, no hard feelings.

 

Jeff

 

 

 

[bdiament]

"I do appreciate your comparison, no hard feelings.

 

In view of the fact that I wasn't arguing, that's very kind of you, Jeff.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

I would say that when making any comparisons between (for example) the Berkeley and the ULN-8, you have to take into account that your source (the PC / Mac) needs to be connected to the DAC. With the ULN-8, the simple connection is to use a single FireWire cable.

 

With the Berkeley however, the situation is complicated. You CANNOT (IMO) test the Berkeley independent of an additional piece of (interface) hardware. You need to add a Lynx card, or Weiss FireWire to AES interface, etc. If you are using the Berkeley as a DAC for a computer there is no getting round that. Therefore there is no point saying that the comparison is unscientific as you are using an additional interface - it's a fact of choosing the Berkeley as your DAC.

 

I don't think anyone has said that using an additional converter (such as Weiss or using the ULN8 as an AES interface) won't colour the sound. But even if you are using a Lynx AES16 card - that is still a converter and necessary to use the Berkeley as a DAC with a computer.

 

You can argue what is comparing apples to apples - but my personal opinion is that an apples to apples comparison (involving these components) is to compare the ULN8 to a Berkeley paired with either an AES interface card (Lynx AES16 or maybe the RME Hammerfall range) or with a high quality FireWire to AES converter (Weiss AFI1 say). You may say thats comparing apples to oranges - but the only alternative is to compare the ULN8 via FireWire to the only interface built into a Mac to connect the Berkeley to - the optical connection.

 

I think this is the point Clay often makes about legacy or dinosaur DACs. It's not straightforward to demo and evaluate them because there is ALWAYS another component involved.

 

Eloise

 

[ted_b]

If you want the best pitcher for your baseball team, you choose the pitcher that can get people out. One uses his fastball primarily, the other uses his breaking pitch as his best setup pitch. To compare them "scientifically" and ask one to leave his best pitch at home is absurd. Same with the argument that the Berkeley and ULN-8 (or Weiss DAC2 or whatever) MUST have the same interface card. Nonsense. The MH ULN-8 (and the Weiss) were built to sound best with a firewire cable and driver from your MAC/computer; the Berkeley was designed to sound best via a soundcard like the Lynx AES16. Use each when trying to hear the best sound coming from that DAC, period. To penalize one DAC or the other is nonsense; unless you are the DAC's engineer you don't know that the processing going on inside the box is different with the ULN-8 vs the Berkeley (in other words, the ULN-8 requires the computer source and its firewire driver to do a-b-c and d, but the Berkeley requires only a-b and c, because it requires "d" in the sound card, since no drivers have been invoked!) To rely on a simple one variable scientific experiment model is silly; and to call these comparisons apples to oranges is to...well, not know baseball I guess.

 

[bdiament]

Is the Berkeley in fact, designed to get its input *specifically* from the Lynx card?

 

Or is it designed to get an AES input, which for most computers, requires a card like the Lynx (or an external interface) to provide the AES output?

 

I have seen nothing in the literature that specifies the Lynx as a requirement. Perhaps I missed it.

 

(Sometimes, I wonder if the same questions would have arisen if the Berkeley won that particular shootout.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

Barry asked... "Is the Berkeley in fact, designed to get its input *specifically* from the Lynx card?

 

Or is it designed to get an AES input, which for most computers, requires a card like the Lynx (or an external interface) to provide the AES output?"

If I recall, several people have reported asking the question of Berkeley what is the best interface to use their Alpha DAC with a computer and have been told to use the Lynx AES16.

 

I think that the DAC is designed for any AES input, but the Lynx is the more often used interface.

 

Eloise

 

[ted_b]

My point was not the Lynx per se, bu the fact that the Berkeley sounds best with a top notch AES card, the ULN-8 with a good firewire cable, yada yada. No sense making one DAC subscribe to the other's best topology or then calling it "unscientific" if not.