ECdesigns

[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?

[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.

[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.