ECdesigns

[bodiebill]

11 minutes ago, hopkins said:

But what I meant to say is this: if you can accept the idea that an "audiophile" source can minimize noise & jitter, then it is not fundamentally different than accepting the idea that this could also be done within the DAC.  Do you see what I mean ? 

 

Yes I see your point. But in that case the PD should have a stellar (re)clock(er). And is this likely when most who tried them agree that different reclockers/external clocks sound different and that these are mostly considerably more expensive than the PD alone?

[Norton]

Anyone know any more on how the PS “S” is progressing?  My recollection was that ECD were contemplating using valve amps ( which put me off a bit I must confess). 

[Huubster]

1 minute ago, bodiebill said:

 

Yes I see your point. But in that case the PD should have a stellar (re)clock(er). 

 

I think it has. I'm not sure it has a better re-clocker then other clocks. But at least it sounds 'better' to me then when I'm using the Mutec MC3+ USB in my setup. 

 

That whole clocking thing is still a bit dazzling to me to be honest. 

[bodiebill]

6 minutes ago, Huubster said:

I think it has. I'm not sure it has a better re-clocker then other clocks. But at least it sounds 'better' to me then when I'm using the Mutec MC3+ USB in my setup. 

 

That whole clocking thing is still a bit dazzling to me to be honest. 

 

Yes, I was thinking of you when stating that this difference can also be perceived as negative :-)

But the important thing for the discussion here is that we agree that there is a difference, as this shows that source immunity is not achieved by the PD.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

4 minutes ago, Norton said:

Anyone know any more on how the PS “S” is progressing?  My recollection was that ECD were contemplating using valve amps ( which put me off a bit I must confess). 

 

John has made a lot of progress, made significant changes to the S model (nothing that is relevant to the R model) and seems very happy with the results. I understand they will be moving towards production in the coming months.

[numlog]

25 minutes ago, hopkins said:

But what I meant to say is this: if you can accept the idea that an "audiophile" source can minimize noise & jitter, then it is not fundamentally different than accepting the idea that this could also be done within the DAC.  Do you see what I mean ? I was essentially replying to the concern that Norton expressed that source immunity would imply "leveling down" to the "worst" source.

 

But the idea put forth with PD is source immunity, immunity is a very big claim in this area and one you supported in your intial review. otoh minimising is a reasonable claim, open to many interpretations.

basically every dac on the market has means of minimising jitter and interference from the source.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Just now, numlog said:

But the idea put forth with PD is source immunity, immunity is a very big claim in this area and one you supported in your intial review. otoh minimising is a reasonable claim, open to many interpretations.

 

I do not have a high-end audiophile source - just the UPL. So I tend to be cautious about this (hence the "minimizing"). Also, reading others' reports since has at times put doubts in my head as well. But I keep comparing, and I really do not find differences - if there are they would be so minimal that they are to me insignificant. Lately, listening directly to the PowerDAC-R with etymotic earplugs has even convinced me more of this, as there are less variables in the equation and less chances that other aspects could interfere (use of seperate amplifier). So I do stand by my inital assessment, but I do not claim to hold the truth !

[Norton]

36 minutes ago, yogibear said:

 

One clarification: I do not use preamp in my line up. The DHT Tube preamp is sitting duck and another nice SS, already sold.

 

Changed the stock Toslink to a 2 meter / 6 feet cable. No degradation in sonics this time. So this is settled.

 

I like to keep simple and short line up. Mine is an audio optimized windows laptop connected to Power DAC, which feeds my DIY tube amp mono blocks driving single full range drivers on large L shape open baffles. 

 

Never used UPL so no experience here. First it was U192ETL with DA96ETF and now its Power DAC R with UT96. However I would love to someday couple PD with U192ETL.

 

The U192ETL / DA96ETF is now with a friend who has a respectable TT and Vinyl collection. His observation is consistent with mine on the combo. Very very dark..... He loves the DAC so much that he takes very long time gaps to go back to his Vinyl setup. He has had many popular branded DACs in his stable. (Under $10K) He loves the DA96ETF and says all other DACs should "go back to school". (No arguments here, just sharing his views)

 

I have dedicated earth in my house, in fact two, each 15 feet deep, running a solid thick copper strip running all to the power distribution box.

 

I have had many DACs, nothing too special, first being Objective DAC and last two were DIY R2R based on monolith AD1862 and AD1856. The notion of rolling opamps made be uncomfortable. I sold them all to fund PD purchase. I have no regrets..... Only wish is to try Electrotos input over Toslink. 

 

One aspect I loved with DA96ETF / U192ETL with bundle purchase was, each cable was made by ECD. I wish the USB with PD was also made by ECD too... (Expecting Toslink to be made by them is unnecessary)  

 

In a recent blind test, RCA cables made by ECD were compared with 10X expensive branded RCA (well regarded) and there was no noticeable diffrence heard by any of the listeners, with DA96ETF / U192ETL combo. (Am no fan of "superb sounding cables",  just sharing one observation.)

 

 

Thanks.

 

Yes vinyl has been my principal source for many years, but lately I’ve focussed more on digital and the ECD products have greatly assisted in this ( although I would shy away from terms like “analogue sounding“) .

 

But if you and your friend like the DAC96, I’d recommend hearing it with the UPL,  a significant  SQ improvement over the U192 IMO, plus a level of inconvenience normally reserved for much more expensive hi-fi.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

13 minutes ago, Huubster said:

 

I think it has. I'm not sure it has a better re-clocker then other clocks. But at least it sounds 'better' to me then when I'm using the Mutec MC3+ USB in my setup. 

 

That whole clocking thing is still a bit dazzling to me to be honest. 

 

Perhaps I am going to annoy everyone with another answer, but what ECD explains is that the specifications of the clock itself is not the critical aspect. The critical aspect is the "low noise" environment in which all of this is done. This also goes way beyond my comprehension, but I just wanted to point it out.

 

[numlog]

Also the idea of 'leveling down' makes perfect sense, it is the nature of reclocking and FIFOs.

Assuming immunity to source interference, noise and jitter, you are also completely isolating the jitter performance of the source.

The jitter performance is not just improved or reduced from the source jitter, it is redefined by the jitter performance of the PD, it is very possible that source jitter could in fact be better than the PD and it will get 'leveled down'.

 

btw I dont mean to imply this is a downside to immunity, the jitter would still only be as good as PD without immunity but with the potential for jittery source to make it worse.

 

[Huubster]

5 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

 

Yes, I was thinking of you when stating that this difference can also be perceived as negative :-)

But the important thing for the discussion here is that we agree that there is a difference as this suggests that source immunity is not achieved by the PD.

 I knew that :)

 

But indeed, good point.

 

Though I have to come back to my former statements of my Innuos still sounding much better then my Bluesound Node 2i.. After some more A-B testing I have to say that the differences are subtle. My mind made the differences bigger then they really are. So I'm about to pull the trigger on selling my Innuos. 

 

How about that, never thought it would come so far..

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

14 minutes ago, numlog said:

Also the idea of 'leveling down' makes perfect sense, it is the nature of reclocking and FIFOs.

Assuming immunity to source interference and noise, you are also completely isolating the jitter performance of the source,

The jitter performance is not just improved or reduced from the source jitter, it is redefined by the jitter performance of the PD, it is very possible that source jitter could in fact be better than the PD and it will get 'leveled down'.

 

Everything is possible. When I play a track from my noisy windows PC using Foobar (my work computer, no optimization whatsoever) and don't hear a difference with the same track playing from the UPL, it is possible that my hearing is impaired, or that I am so biased that I don't recognize differences (while I did fully embrace the UPL over any other source before...), or that the PowerDAC is so bad that it completely annihilates the benefits of the UPL, etc... etc...

 

So we have to keep an open mind about all this - either way. The best thing is to try for yourself.

[numlog]

9 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Everything is possible. When I play a track from my noisy windows PC using Foobar (my work computer, no optimization whatsoever) and don't hear a difference with the same track playing from the UPL, it is possible that my hearing is impaired, or that I am so biased that I don't recognize differences (while I did fully embrace the UPL over any other source before...), or that the PowerDAC is so bad that it completely annihilates the benefits of the UPL, etc... etc...

 

So we have to keep an open mind about all this - either way. The best thing is to try for yourself.

You probably mentioned it somewhere but have you tried different sources connected directly to the PD or just through UPL? 

 

UPL is another digital buffer that will provide its own jitter and noise reduction/isolation.

 

sorry misread that.

 

toslink is notoriously high jitter protocol, I wonder if the conversion could be masking influence from the source jitter.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 minute ago, numlog said:

You probably mentioned it somewhere but have you tried different sources connected directly to the PD or just through UPL? 

 

UPL is another digital buffer that will provide its own jitter and noise reduction/isolation.

 

The UPL is a "player", just like any other. The other "players" I have tried would not qualify as "high end":

- Euphony on a NUC

- Audirvana on a desktop PC

- various software (MPD, LMS) on a RaspberryPi 

- USB Audio Pro on an Android tablet

 

I do not have fancy power supplies (aside for a Farad, but have only used it on the RaspberryPi as it is 5v). I don't have fancy network "audiophile" gear.

 

So this disqualifies all my testing (aside for the UPL, which as I mentioned in my review is a player which I extensively tested against pretty "high end" sources in other's systems).

[Huubster]

32 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Perhaps I am going to annoy everyone with another answer, but what ECD explains is that the specifications of the clock itself is not the critical aspect. The critical aspect is the "low noise" environment in which all of this is done. This also goes way beyond my comprehension, but I just wanted to point it out.

 

 Might be a valid point Stephane. I took care of removing all SMPS's from my chain, but guess what, the Mutec has an SMPS.. :) 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

8 minutes ago, numlog said:

You probably mentioned it somewhere but have you tried different sources connected directly to the PD or just through UPL? 

 

UPL is another digital buffer that will provide its own jitter and noise reduction/isolation.

 

sorry misread that.

 

toslink is notoriously high jitter protocol, I wonder if the conversion could be masking influence from the source jitter.

 

You are going to get another upvote from Matthias 😁

 

I don't think I will convince you of anything, either through paraphrasing ECD's technical explanations, or by explaing the various tests I have done (in my system, and comparing with other DACs).

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

4 minutes ago, Huubster said:

 Might be a valid point Stephane. I took care of removing all SMPS's from my chain, but guess what, the Mutec has an SMPS.. :) 

 

I was referring more to everything that goes on within the DAC. But yes, maybe the Mutec can itself be improved with a better PS. And maybe the SMPS of the Mutec changes things somewhat "overall" to the operation of your system. Who knows... 

[bodiebill]

22 minutes ago, Huubster said:

My mind made the differences bigger then they really are.

 

The workings of the mind...

So now maybe your mind makes the differences smaller than they really are?

Just saying... It is hard with all this talk and think to really go back to a holistic/intuitive experience which in the end is the best judge of everything...

[bodiebill]

6 minutes ago, hopkins said:

I was referring more to everything that goes on within the DAC. But yes, maybe the Mutec can itself be improved with a better PS. 

 

Not that I have an opinion on that, but this is what Mutec say:

From a sonic point of view, computer-based music sources off er a rather inadequate environment for audiophile music enjoyment. Due to their construction, they operate with high clock rates while they keep a variety of processes running parallel to the music reproduction that create a wide spectrum of high-frequency interference of all kinds. The MC-3+USB is equipped with a special USB interface to minimize these unavoidable interferences and to prevent the sensitive digital-to-analogue conversion process from being adversely aff ected. It is completely galvanically isolated from the rest of the device, operating with its own ultra-low noise audio clock oscillators, which are fed by a carefully designed power supply consisting of a pre-regulator with a downstream main regulator.
The MC-3+USB thereby acts as an isolator between the audio computer and the subsequent digital signal path. Interferences from the USB data stream can be suppressed as far as possible, resulting in an almost interference immune behaviour of the USB interface towards the connected PC, laptop or music server.

Also striving for source immunity apparently...

[Huubster]

1 minute ago, bodiebill said:

 

The workings of the mind...

So now maybe your mind makes the differences smaller than they really are?

Just saying... It is hard with all this talk and think to really go back to a holistic/intuitive experience which in the end is the best judge of everything...

 

Haha, yes, maybe. But then I'm glad it works now :) 

 

That's why I'm now listening to de Bluesound exclusively, and I have to say I'm just glad I don't have the feeling I'm missing out on anything. And I finally have a great UI to work with for streaming as a bonus. 

 

 

[numlog]

12 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

You are going to get another upvote from Matthias 😁

 

I don't think I will convince you of anything, either through paraphrasing ECD's technical explanations, or by explaing the various tests I have done (in my system, and comparing with other DACs).

For a second I thought you meant UPL was used as USB to toslink converter for different PCs but that wouldnt work.

 

Due to their huge difference in nature,  a UPL and a noisy unoptimized PC would be as good as anything for  testing source immunity.

 

Not sure what you trying to convince me of, you personally dont hear a difference, no technical explanation needed for that. I'm discussing how/why others might be hearing differences.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

15 minutes ago, numlog said:

Not sure what you trying to convince me of, you personally dont hear a difference, no technical explanation needed for that. I'm discussing how/why others might be hearing differences.

 

OK, sorry I was not really trying to convince you, and you are right to point out possible explanations. My point of view is just one of many. There are conflincting reports, which are all perfectly legitimate. 

 

I'll be the first to admit that it is going to be really difficult to reach a definitive conclusion on all this.

- technical explanations are informative, but may obviously not be complete

- expectation bias certainly plays a role, in both directions as Bodiebill pointed out

- blind tests can be interesting but are also controversial and can be challenged

- when listening in a system we can have different elements interacting (through the power supplies, RF, etc...), and people may always find faults in the systems used 

 

It certainly is an interesting topic though.

 

 

 

 

[bodiebill]

OK, switching from theory to experiment...

 

Of course I could not just sit and wait for my stand-alone player to arrive... So I already did some comparisons.

 

Previous setup:

- NUC/wtfplay => usb => Mutec MC-3+ USB => 15m TosLink => Pegasus, or
- NUC/wtfplay => usb => Mutec MC-3+ USB => 15m TosLink => PD

 

And, thanks to @Huubster who suggested I use the U192 as a usb-opt converter, I just tried

- NUC/wtfplay => usb => U192 => TosLink => Pegasus
- NUC/wtfplay => usb => U192 => TosLink => PD
- NUC/wtfplay => usb => Mutec => TosLink => Pegasus
- NUC/wtfplay => usb => Mutec => TosLink => PD
this time with ECD's short stock TosLink cable. 

 

The good news is that the PD sounds much better than before!
Can it really be the shorter TosLink cable?

 

Although I mostly listen to classical and jazz I tested this with a pop song (Keb' Mo - That's Not Love) as this is where I first noticed considerable differences in crispness, bass melodiousness and bass drum control.

 

Not insignificant: I recently changed my setup (previously Cayin tube amp + Spendor SP100; now Reimyo KAP-777 + TAD ME1) and I got so impressed by the extra resolution, control and soundstage that I may be too focused on that, which may well influence my preferences for now.

 

The PD and Pegasus are now closer together but in the pop song I still prefer the Pegasus for openness and control. For both I prefer to insert the Mutec for added ease and clarity.

The PD has a wonderfully saturated and non-fatiguing sound but I really think the bass performance, control and timing are somewhat insufficient. The PD seems to cover up some things with the cloak of love. For this reason I can imagine that I will prefer it for some classical music, such as historically informed baroque performances with strings, which can be pretty strident.

 

Just my preliminary impressions: both DACs remain and I will occasionaly (not too often!) switch in order to get to know them better in my new setup.

[numlog]

Are you using Pegasus in NOS or OS mode?

[bodiebill]

I sometimes switch. The difference is too subtle to alter the above observations...