ECdesigns

[jwr159]

I hope there are no objections to this post, but I listed on the classifieds forum my Power DAC-R, remote, and upgraded PS.  I would like to sell to partially fund the purchase of the newer SX. Just making others aware. 

[M_audio]

Justa short pic, i am testing like crazy. I even managed to burn an xpensive USB-card during the process of testing.

Currently WW USB  from Macbook cable going into Matrix X SPDIF 3, then optical WW cable into Mutec MC3, and then via Lifatec to PowerDAC B.
Still not finished, further stuff is on the way - Cardas Clear AES cable and Clear XLR to go balanced from preamp into Wadia, which should bring at least 3dB in SNR. And other stuff which should make a music server outta MacBook Pro 2015 if it works according to my plan. 1st try failed with burning flahes (on the USB card). Why i am not giving up? Cos with PowerDAC B i feel i am onto something. Already now ambiental Dub Techno sounds super lush and atmospheric with sounds with lotsa body moving in the background inna super chilly way, while Miles' Kinda Blue became super transparent with great double-bass.

[bodiebill]

As former happy ECdesigns user who since moved on to other brands, my interest is rekindled by reports here about the PowerDAC-SX. Its elegant simplistics plus alledged SQ do appeal to me.

 

I am a little puzzled by the looks of the PD-SX speaker sockets. They resemble RCA ones. Do these accept banana plugs?

 

And any idea whether the PD-SX would be a good combination with my Wolf von Langa SONs (8 ohm 94 dB/1m sensitivity)?

[yogibear]

Yes SX accepts banana plugs. And it should mate well with Wolf von Langa. 8 ohms is no issue and if sensitivity is true 94dB, you would not need to go over 15 with maximum of 24 on the volume. 

[bodiebill]

47 minutes ago, yogibear said:

Yes SX accepts banana plugs. And it should mate well with Wolf von Langa. 8 ohms is no issue and if sensitivity is true 94dB, you would not need to go over 15 with maximum of 24 on the volume. 

 

Thank you, I will seriously ponder over it :-)

I would also connect 3 subs (that I connect at high = speaker-level), and assume that would be no problem.

[M_audio]

On 1/9/2024 at 6:41 PM, yogibear said:

 

Fired up the BX today. Initial impressions:

 

1. Striking dynamic range.

2. Excellent details and resolution.

3. Bigger soundstage. 
4. Incredible bass extension.

 

 

This is compared/relative to what? Power Dac B? I'm curious what was your source/connection to PowerDac BX?

[yogibear]

4 hours ago, M_audio said:

This is compared/relative to what? Power Dac B? I'm curious what was your source/connection to PowerDac BX?

Compared to B. Playing from Laptop, lossless files in JRiver. Windows 10 optimized for audio playback. USB to Optical from UT196. 

[matthias]

7 hours ago, yogibear said:

USB to Optical from UT196

Did you compare SQ of Toslink vs ElectroTos?

ECD claims that ElectroTos is superior.

Thx

[yogibear]

Seems like Electrotos is superior but only a blind test can confirm that. Currently playing through Electrotos only.

[Khronos]

22 hours ago, bodiebill said:

As former happy ECdesigns user who since moved on to other brands, my interest is rekindled by reports here about the PowerDAC-SX. Its elegant simplistics plus alledged SQ do appeal to me.

 

I am a little puzzled by the looks of the PD-SX speaker sockets. They resemble RCA ones. Do these accept banana plugs?

 

And any idea whether the PD-SX would be a good combination with my Wolf von Langa SONs (8 ohm 94 dB/1m sensitivity)?

Quite sure Wolf von Langa likes to audition these with Thomas Mayer equipment, AKA real Fleawatt stuff.
https://www.vinylsavor.com/

 

[M_audio]

12 hours ago, yogibear said:

Compared to B. Playing from Laptop, lossless files in JRiver. Windows 10 optimized for audio playback. USB to Optical from UT196. 

Thnx, I see. So basically USB to TOSLink like i do with PowerDAC B.

BX should be better by design, e.g. afaik it doesnt use anymore I2S, something which should create even less noise and/or distortion, and i trust EC Designs in this point.

What i noticed is that B is xtremely sensible to source and connection used. I tested direct TOSLINK connection to it with various plastic optical cables, could hear differences between diverse plastic optical cables. While not all was bad (as i wrote before, great sense of immediacy and analog sound), highs were just way too strong. Adding Mutec aleviated it but did not remove it completely.
Adding Lifatec optical removed the too strong highs and attack (direct connection Macbook to PowerDAC B), but made the sound more sonore and sometimes even rough (e.g. Bach Cello solos).  

However i think with 2 recklockers i could be somewhere where you are with PowerDAC SQ - some things even better, some maybe not. Cos i know BX can't be 100% immune to source and connection either. No component ever is.

In the end i will also use so called Regen-Link - super short Curious Evolved USB cable to 1st recklocker, than AES to Mutec and then Lifatec optical to PowerDAC B.

Already now eclectic Charles Webster mix never sounded so good.

[yogibear]

The laptop HDD was partitioned in two halves with one half installed with decrapified windows 10 and then some series of tweaks done by a friend. The laptop is dedicated to audio only and serves me well. JRiver installed and now with BX, even Spotify premium sounds quite close to lossless though I am not sure why. Probably BX and SX are closest to source immunity among all other models. Qobuz may be better but I had streaming / buffering issues, so discontinued the subscription. Currently it’s on wifi but would plan a dedicated cable and would hardwire the connection. 

 

Lossless however sounds incredible and very very dark. Sometime too unreal.

[bodiebill]

On 1/20/2024 at 3:40 PM, bodiebill said:

As former happy ECdesigns user who since moved on to other brands, my interest is rekindled by reports here about the PowerDAC-SX. Its elegant simplistics plus alledged SQ do appeal to me.

 

I am a little puzzled by the looks of the PD-SX speaker sockets. They resemble RCA ones. Do these accept banana plugs?

 

And any idea whether the PD-SX would be a good combination with my Wolf von Langa SONs (8 ohm 94 dB/1m sensitivity)?

 

I spoke to Gordon Brown. He is not familiar with WVL SON speakers but, after my description, expects they will work well with the SX.

 

However, when I told him that I correct my audio files using finely tuned convolution filters (digital room correction), he suggested that the SX would not be for me. I should have seen that coming as I know that the Browns are adamant when it comes to the bitperfect concept.

 

I must admit that I have been struggling with this concept. I do agree that an audio chain should be able to preserve bitperfection, so that we know that it does not change anything other than what I want to be changed. So it is a good thing that this can be tested with the SX.

 

The objective of bitperfection -- as I understand it -- is to stay as close to the original as possible. But what is 'the original'? To me this is not the audio file itself but rather that what the engineer heard coming from his gear, and resonating in the room he was in at the time. In other words, the original consists of (1) audio file, (2) gear, (3) room, (4) the listener's hearing (ears and brains).

 

Now I take one fourth of the original, namely the audio file, and then add my own gear, room and hearing. The latter three will change things. Especially the room adds coloring, room modes and timing errors. These anomalies increase the gap between the original (in the broad sense of the word) and our result at home.

 

So what is wrong with decreasing that gap by applying convolution? It honors the objective of the bitperfectionists, namely to stay as close as possible to the original -- even though I believe that their definition of 'original' is too narrow.

[M_audio]

On 1/22/2024 at 12:39 PM, bodiebill said:

 

I spoke to Gordon Brown. He is not familiar with WVL SON speakers but, after my description, expects they will work well with the SX.

 

However, when I told him that I correct my audio files using finely tuned convolution filters (digital room correction), he suggested that the SX would not be for me. I should have seen that coming as I know that the Browns are adamant when it comes to the bitperfect concept.

 

I must admit that I have been struggling with this concept. I do agree that an audio chain should be able to preserve bitperfection, so that we know that it does not change anything other than what I want to be changed. So it is a good thing that this can be tested with the SX.

 

The objective of bitperfection -- as I understand it -- is to stay as close to the original as possible. But what is 'the original'? To me this is not the audio file itself but rather that what the engineer heard coming from his gear, and resonating in the room he was in at the time. In other words, the original consists of (1) audio file, (2) gear, (3) room, (4) the listener's hearing (ears and brains).

 

Now I take one fourth of the original, namely the audio file, and then add my own gear, room and hearing. The latter three will change things. Especially the room adds coloring, room modes and timing errors. These anomalies increase the gap between the original (in the broad sense of the word) and our result at home.

 

So what is wrong with decreasing that gap by applying convolution? It honors the objective of the bitperfectionists, namely to stay as close as possible to the original -- even though I believe that their definition of 'original' is too narrow.

I used DSP as Plugin in Audirvana with Mosaic T16 DAC with great results. It was real-time DSP as correction of my speakers response in room.
I stopped using it when i changed the speakers - it would have meant measuring again to create the new response profile. But also when adding some components which change e.g the higs. So not using it now.
 
You are not wrong, but the 4 parts in your equation are not all equal. The file is the basis, the biggest part of the equation, while room and speaker response are dynamic variables dependent one on another. Sometimes you can get without it. They mostly affect certain frequencies of the reproduced file, not all of them, but still can change our perception of the music a lot.

If PowerDAC SX works for you otherwise - do they have enough ampere for WVL - i would still go for it with DSP. It can only make things better. And maybe you decide you don't need DSP.

 

[bodiebill]

On 1/5/2024 at 11:12 AM, tapatrick said:

I've tried 2 rel subwoofers which extend the bass down to 30hz (the Omegas go down to 40hz).

 

How did you connect these? Are these high (speaker-) level connections in the vein of:

- R (red) to the positive right speaker socket on the SX

- L (black) to the positive left speaker socket on the SX

- ground (yellow?) to one of the negative speaker sockets on the SX

and a Speakon connector at the REL end?

[bodiebill]

The SX is in my shopping cart, but I did not press the order button yet...

 

This morning I compared the optical output of my Rose RS130 streamer, using three different (PCM192 capable) toslink cables, to its USB output, and the latter sounds considerably better. The SX only does optical, hence my hesitation. I know, ECD have their own design principles, but still...

 

By the way, the USB connection between my streamer and DAC is optically isolated.

[bodiebill]

58 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

The SX is in my shopping cart, but I did not press the order button yet...

 

This morning I compared the optical output of my Rose RS130 streamer, using three different (PCM192 capable) toslink cables, to its USB output, and the latter sounds considerably better. The SX only does optical, hence my hesitation. I know, ECD have their own design principles, but still...

 

By the way, the USB connection between my streamer and DAC is optically isolated.

 

P S I briefly spoke to John and he explained that the SX decrapifies and reclocks the optical signal. The latter is unusual of course as TosLink is usually treated synchronously.

[Michael L]

1 hour ago, bodiebill said:

The SX is in my shopping cart, but I did not press the order button yet...

 

This morning I compared the optical output of my Rose RS130 streamer, using three different (PCM192 capable) toslink cables, to its USB output, and the latter sounds considerably better. The SX only does optical, hence my hesitation. I know, ECD have their own design principles, but still...

 

By the way, the USB connection between my streamer and DAC is optically isolated.

Looks like you are in the Netherlands. You could easiy return the SX if it wasn't up to your expectations.

[matthias]

@bodiebill

...or get a SX as a loan unit from ECD for a few weeks and decide after?

[bodiebill]

I just ordered it :-)

Hot-headedly?

Well, there is always the 14-day cooling-off period for internet purchases in the EU...

[Lebouwsky]

1 hour ago, bodiebill said:

I just ordered it :-)

Hot-headedly?

Well, there is always the 14-day cooling-off period for internet purchases in the EU...

Congratulations, it’s fun buying something exciting once in a while. I’m looking forward to your findings. 

[tapatrick]

On 1/24/2024 at 5:50 PM, bodiebill said:

 

How did you connect these? Are these high (speaker-) level connections in the vein of:

- R (red) to the positive right speaker socket on the SX

- L (black) to the positive left speaker socket on the SX

- ground (yellow?) to one of the negative speaker sockets on the SX

and a Speakon connector at the REL end?

Sub is connected to High Level (speakon connector) Red and Yellow wires are connected to + and the Black to -.
See here from the supplied Rel manual

[botrytis]

High level interconnect for REL is 150Kohm also. Really doesn't affect the output of the amp that much. Then you get both high and low filters also.

[bodiebill]

8 minutes ago, tapatrick said:

Sub is connected to High Level (speakon connector) Red and Yellow wires are connected to + and the Black to -.
See here from the supplied Rel manual

 

Thanks, that's indeed what I meant: I confused black and yellow (in my message, not in real life). John sent me an extensive dissertation on this, but the gist is he also thinks it should work with my 3 subs. By the way, for the two SVS subs, that only have a low level (RCA) connection, I am using a Focal HiLo 3 converter to attach them at speaker level in a stereo configuration (4 wires). SQ wise I always preferred speaker level.

[tapatrick]

6 hours ago, bodiebill said:

 

Thanks, that's indeed what I meant: I confused black and yellow (in my message, not in real life). John sent me an extensive dissertation on this, but the gist is he also thinks it should work with my 3 subs. By the way, for the two SVS subs, that only have a low level (RCA) connection, I am using a Focal HiLo 3 converter to attach them at speaker level in a stereo configuration (4 wires). SQ wise I always preferred speaker level.

Enjoy! Sounds good... PS. I doubt very much you will be sending the SX back :)