Guido, From what Alex and Jack have told me about the APL DV-50, the multi-channel outputs and video section are untouched. It is only a mod on the single ended "high-quality" stereo outputs. These outputs can be used as the front channels of multi-channel listening though. The balanced outputs are disabled.
Dave |
Avguru,
One thing to consider is a tube preamp. I use a C.J. and I feel it adds to the musicality . Guido : sorry man , I'm a lousy typist . |
AlDavis,
Thanks for your response. I wish I could say for sure that the X01 was "fuller sounding" than the UX1. I know both are voiced on the brighter side and not as warm as the DV 50.
I auditioned the X01 on a really warm system (see my previous review) and that may have hidden some of the issues I heard with the UX1. In talking to Marc Michelson at Soundstage (he reviewed the DV 50, UX1 and X01 side by side) he told me he felt the X01 was about 20% better than the UX1 which is a lot of improvement when talking audio.
What I do remember is when I brought my DV 50 to the dealer for a direct comparision to the X01 it tore it a new "you know what" and I was flabbergasted at the differences. Not even close. The UX1 was also signifcantly better but I didn
't leave that demo with the same "overwhelming feeling of superiority" that I did when I demoed the X01.
Yes, you are correct that I am particularly enamored with tubes right now. The best non-tube digital just seems (imho) to get better at doing the things audiophiles love to talk about: soundstaging, imaging, increased detail, etc but still fail to sound more musical.
When I say musical I'm not talking "analog" sounding. That's easy to achive even in a digital cdp. All you have to do is voice the player more towards the mid-range, eliminate some of the detail and soften up the high's by rolling them off. Some of the high end Marantz players, Lector, etc know how to perform this trick very well.
I don't want to just "hear" the music sound better or more analog. I want to "feel" it...the emotion, palpability, etc. I want images to feel as though they're right in front of you. Peforming for you in person. Tubes can do that.
I want very much for the Esoteric to take me where I want to go because I love their products, technology, build quality, etc. But at $13,000 a cd player should do more than what I heard from the UX1. Right now, I haven't heard anything close to the modded players other than the DV 50/Audio Aero Capitole Dac combination I alluded to at the end of my last post.
That sounded unbelievable but I didn't get to hear it on a variety of music..only jazz. But if it sounds good on all types of music that may be the route I go. It would give me the superior redbook sound I'm looking for while keeping the ability to play the high rez formats. The DV 50 sounds very good in SACD and DVD-A (not as good as the UX1 or X01) but I could live with it.
My only problems/concerns with the modded players has to do with the re-sell value and some of the quirky operational features (built-in digital volume controls, disabling of some features/functions and most of them sound best direct to the amp. I like having a pre/pro and don't want to see it rendered useless in 2 channel).
AVGURU |
Aldavis, I suspect you may be correct about X-01. By the way, may I ask you to put one space-char after each period? I am using a speech synthesizer to read the text and the poor creature cannot use your periods for prosodic control unless you do follow each with a space. If you heard it, it sounds like 'stream of consciousness.' Thanks, Guido |
avguru,
The ux1 audio is the same as the upcoming ux3 and x03.I'm guessing that the x01 will 'fill out' some with twice the chips.I'm really looking forward to your x01 ux1 comparison.From what I'm hearing from you, however,your love of musicality I bet you'd be happiest with a tube output stage what ever your ultimate choice.Other things may change the extraction of info but a tube output will change the sonic signature.If a "musical sound " is what you want it's an option.APL apparently does a nice job with these .Just a thought.I'm thinking about a ux3/tube mod option myself down the road.I currently own the dv 50 and share your feelings. |
Fab review AVGURU! Just from memory, do you have a feel on how UX-1 is different from X-01? If you consider the moded DV50 keep in mind that at least at this time Alex is disabling the XLR balanced outputs. He is using 2-channel RCA outs only. Multi-channel and video may be disabled as well. |
711,
Didn't know you were back in town. Good to see you back on the forum! I've had the UX1 at my home for the past few days and will be taking it back tomorrow. I was going to bring it to your house for a shoot-out with your newly modded 3910 but Alex told me he has it again for a small modification. I guess you'll be recieving it by this weekend or the early part of next week. We'll get together (all of us) as we originally planned.
Regarding spending $$$'s, I'm not eager to take a chance (and potential bath) on a modded player unless I can hear it upfront and know I'll be happy for a long, long time.
I'm not looking to buy a modded player and then flip it after a short period of time. I want to buy a player I can be happy with for 3-5 years. Once I find that player I will be off Audiogon for a long time and just enjoying the music!
I need to hear your new modded 3910 as I felt Jactoy's Sony Modwright 9000ES was superior (i.e more musical)than both your Exemplar 3910 and the APL 3910. An even more attractive option for me (in terms of $'s) is to have Alex mod my DV 50.
I'm hoping to make a business trip to Houston in the next two weeks where I can hear the DV 50 Alex just modded for Jack.
We'll talk soon!
AVGURU |
ESOTERIC UX1 REVIEW
To All:
I've had the pleasure of demoing the $13,000 Esoteric UX1 universal player for the last three days. Here are my impressions, first against the DV 50:
In some areas the UX1 is a dramatic improvement over the DV 50. The soundstage is wider and taller, spacing between instruments is improved dramatically, voices sound more natural and bass detail has been greatly improved. These changes are not small. Its a very polished, more high end sound than the DV 50. And its a more relaxed sound as the DV 50 exudes a lot of high energy. Its like the difference between two peole running a 100 meter dash..one short and one tall. The short person (due to shorter legs) has to sweat and work twice as hard to cover the same ground as the tall person, who looks more relaxed while running at the same speed.
Esoteric should be applauded for maintaing a consistent sound through all formats. I've heard universal players where one format sounds exceedingly differnt than another. Not the UX1 (or DV 50 for that matter). The same sound characteristics that I described for redbook above also pply to DVD-A and SACD (both 2 channel and multi-channel).
What I mean is, even though DVD-A and SACD are inherently better sounding mediums than redbook the same improvements described for redbook apply to those formats also.
For those die-hard 2 channel folks who say they have no interest in mulit-channel music the UX1 just may change your mind. I played Norah Jones "Live In New Orleans", Ray Charles "Genious Loves Company", BB KIng and Eric Clapton "Ridin with the King" and Steely Dan's "Everything Must Go". All of these are mulit-channel DVD-A or SACD. All sounded superb with great detail, huge soundstages, plenty of air and a "live" feeling like you are there. In that respect I think DVD-A is better than SACD as I've found it repeatedly expresses more raw energy while SACD seems smoother and more analog. The multi-channel performance of the UX1 is definitely better than the DV 50.
I also found DVD-Video performance to be improved. The picture is brighter, more vivid with slighty deeper colors. The old "whites are whiter, blacks are blacker" adage applies here. I didn't see any large improvements in detail, video noise or artifacts, etc. Not that there were any problems in these areas before (there weren't) but I didn't see any improvments either. All of my tests were conducted through the component video outputs as I do not own a high def-TV. Video performance of these units are not talked about a lot, but I formerly owned an Arcam FMJ 27-A and I can tell you that the Esoteric is right up there with that unit.
Operationally, the unit works perfectly. The remote is easy to use, the disc reading is much slower due to the newer transport, the front panel buttons are responsive, the LED display is not too bright and the build quality is far superior to the DV 50...which was already overbuilt. Finally, this is a beautiful unit in the brushed silver finished.
However, there are some performance areas where I feel the DV 50 is superior. The X01 is not a warm machine. Mind you, its not bright but its not as warm as the DV 50. Its also thin sounding in comparision to the DV 50. Not as full or rich. The reason for this is the soundstage has been pushed back about a foot compared to the DV 50. This is actually a good thing as I've often complained about the DV 50 sounding to forward and having too much detail "in your face" with poor layering. One benefit is I found percussion (symbols, drums, etc)to be further back in the soundstage as they should be. This adds to a more layered soundsatage and more depth in comparison to the DV 50.
Also, since the UX1 is even more detailed than the DV 50 this recessed soundstage helps to soften the effect of having even more detail in your face.
The problem is now instruments sound thinner with less body. Images are now smaller. The presentation is not as full or rich. This is not so much a problem on instrumental jazz pices where the arrangements are sparse and tightly focused. However, on lush arrangements with plenty of strings and horns (i.e classical or sensual ballads) the music loses some of its romanticism and musicality because the music no longer swells up and fills the soundstage...it sort of hangs in the air as a backdrop where you notice it but don't get to hear it in its full splendor and glory. Also, some of the dynamics are now gone and PRAT seems to be slower..probably because the soundstage is not as energized and is more recessed. The UX1 does not drive songs home..it kind of paces itself.
Vocals sound more natural on the UX1 as they are not colored (in warmth) like the DV 50. But again, they are not as full. Piano's are brighter...especially in the upper ranges and the timbre is not as accurate compared with the DV 50. You can definitely get listener fatigue if you listen to recordings with a lot of higher frequency instruments in abundance.
Its very frustrating because on some music this less forward, leaner sound is ok and actually more appealing. The DV 50 soundstage in many cases is "much too busy" and the UX1 resolves this problem by throwing a deeper soundstage and less forward soundstage that allows for better layering and less "upfront" fatiguing detail. However, in the process of doing that dynamics, energy and PRAT are sacrificed. Furthermore, performances can seem somewhat more "detached" and "unemotional". Add to this the fact that the UX1 is voiced brighter than the DV 50 and it creates a situation where some songs sound incredible where others are lacking.
I understand this is a very hard balance to achieve and most mfg's struggle with this. Howevever, for the $8,000 price difference between the two units you would hope that the UX1 brings you a little closer to that ideal balance.
To conclude, don't get me wrong here. The UX1 betters the DV 50 in just about every category (and every hi rez format). It sounds more polished, more relaxed, vocals are more natural, spacing is improved, bass detail is much better, soundstage is wider and taller, etc. But for me the ultimate question becomes is it more musical? The answer is no, primarily due to a lack of dynamics and energy, a brighter sound that can be fatiguing, a recessed soundstage that at times doesn't allow you to feel the emotion and PRAT that is lacking in comparision to the DV 50. The UX1 we used had about 200 hours on it and has been around the review circuit.
Because of these findings I now want to re-review the X01 in my home. My previous review of the X01 (very high) was done at the dealer's.
My search continues. In attendance to this demo were Jactoy and 1MarkR who I'm sure will agree with my comments.
Tomorrow I will talk more about the other units that were demoed, the Audio Aero Capitole DAC and Jactoy's Modwright 9000ES Sony. I will give you a small piece of candy to chew on...the DV 50 as a transport pared with the AA DAC was GLORIUS SOUNDING....
AVGURU |
AVGURU, you have heard the Exemplar 3910, not the 2900. BTW I also have a Modwright 3910 on order. I plan on using this for HT, and the APL for 2-channel. AVGURU, it's time to spend some $$$$ too buddy. Start buying and enjoying. Shootouts are great fun, but, if ya don't have your fav unit in house, what good is it? |
Alex,
Reb 1208 and I have extensive experience with the DV 50. Some of the strengths of the stock unit (that I really like) are as follows:
- It is warm sounding
- Very detailed.
- Lively, energetic and dynamic sound.
- It is musical (primarily due to the warmth) but could be
more musical.
- Bass slam and depth is very good.
- Great pace, rhythm and timing.
-Piano's (one of my greatest tests for a cdp)sound real,
full and natural. More importantly, the timbre is
correct.
Here are the weakenesses that need to be addressed:
- The presentation of the detail is too forward.
Instruments that should be a foot or two behind the
singer (i.e drums, symbols, etc) share the front of
the stage with the singer and other instruments. In other
words, soundstage layering is not good.
- The above is the reason why the player may
sound "artificial" to you.
- I totally agree with Reb 1208 that the bass is over-
kill. Too much slam that dominates the music. Some times
bass is too full and can sound bloated. The bass actually
needs to be leaner, less forward and more detailed.
- Soundstage could be wider and taller.
- Spacing between instruments could be better. The
soundstage is somewhat "congealed" with instruments too
close together.
- More air.
- Very little if any two or three dimensionality.
You've already stated that you were impressed with the stock bass performance of the DV 50 and have now gotten the 3910 to improve upon it (in terms of magnitude). I am not impressed with bass of the DV 50 for the reasons stated above and if the 3910 does the same with even more slam it is not an improvement for me.
Regarding dimensionality, I don't know if any solid state design can provide dimensionality like tubes.
Alex, please explain how your mods address the weaknesses I've listed above. I'm not interested in more detail (unless its in the bass) as the DV 50 will compete with ANY player in terms of detail.
TBG- I've heard the Exemplar 2900 (not your 3910) and I thought it sounded very good but was somewhat bright. It did have air, good spacing, great detail and a wide soundstage. The soundstage was a bit too forward and again bass detail could be better. However, it defintely sounded better than the DV 50. Alex's units (his old SACD 1000 and
3910) sounded better. Jactoy's Modwright Sony 9000ES also
sounded better.
Alex- To explain what I mean by bass detail, I listen to a lot of jazz with upright acoustic bass. I want to hear the bass overtones, notes between notes, fingers as they pluck across the strings, etc. And I want very little if any "overhang" on bass notes unless it occurs naturally in the recording studio.
Quite frankly, I'm scared to invest in a mod of the DV 50 and then find out these problems still exist. Your comments would be greatly appreciated.
AVGURU
|
Guidocorona, this is a very good point! I am plannig to have a demo unit by mid February next year which I can ship around. I would appreciate it, if the attendees of this forum consider extensive sessions of multiple shootouts at given location. I am sure that Dan Wright of Modwright, John Tucker of Exemplar and other well respected modders would like to participate with demo machine of their latest and best possible design. Some stock gear as Esoteric, EMM, Reimyo, Meridian, dSC, etc. should also be considered. I am all for it.
Regards,
Alex |
Guidocorona, I have great respect for Dan Wright. As for the Chicago group of "Iron Audiofools", their opinion means alot too. There is no doubt that Dan's mod unit is probably awesome. In the final analysis, most of us can't and sensibly would not purchase all the mod players at one time just to make a declaration who has the best mod. One day someone will come up with the idea of a "MOD FORUM" show and all fools will be invited to come. Just let me know where I can pick up a ticket. |
LA45 and all, Dan Wright at ModWright produces a modified Sony 999ES universal in a two-box twin-tubed implementation, and charges as I recall approx $2700 for the top tier modified unit. Please see:
http://www.modwright.com/products/index.php?product_id=10
I am not qualified to assert if either of these two magicians is better than the other or viceversa, as I have not been blessed with the fortune of auditioning either's creations, but some members of the Chicago-based band of Iron Audiofools involved in the shootouts discussed in this thread have in fact preferred the ModWright over the APL. Of course, let us remember that at the levels of performance we are talking about, personal taste plays as large a role as objective performance. Furthermore, it is fair to remember that these shootouts were conducted prior to Alex adding the internal masterclock to his 3910. On the other hand as I recall the shootouts did not involve ModWright's latest implementations either. |
Alex, I am inclined to agree with Bob on this one. In reading this thread I thought of the same question, why is Alex not selling his own player? For me and others, it sometimes does not make good sense to pay for a brand new unit and the basic operating elements is gutted out.
I would probably not mind getting the Denon 3910 but what hurts is paying a high price for the player plus mod and losing in the end on the resale. My investment money is better spent on you Alex and not Denon.
Alex you are one of the best talents around and I know how you like challenges! I doubt you will have a problem finding financing if you need it.
Your friend,
Lou
|
Alex, I think you are a really talented technician. With excellent hearing skills. Like many of us, I am very frustrated deciding on a source component. And, at this "mature" stage in my audiophile life, I have burned way too much cash. No longer can I spend 5K or more on a machine. I wish that you could find some way to bring the price down on your player. Surely there must be away to souce the Dennon DSP/transport. Then put that into a more economical box.
Regards
Bob |
Reb1208, I listened to the stock DV-50 very shortly as it was not to my taste either - very artificial. What you are saying is right, but it is not caused by ill bass, it is caused by ill midrange and highs in the stock DV-50. After I completely disabled the upsampling, DACs and Analog stage in the machine and installed my components, the sound became magical. It came very close to the Denon in terms of soundstaging, imaging, mids and highs clarity and overall musicality. What really impressed me (after the mods) was the stunning bass performance of the Teac which, again, surpassed the Denon bass. I figured why is that and have updated the Denon which now has the same or better bass than the modded DV-50.
Absolutelly, I am also looking for true reproduction with flat response over the frequency range. The modded DV-50 and Denon 3910 are flat from 20Hz to 20kHz / + - 0.5db.
Regards,
Alex |
One of the main reasons I sold my DV-50 was due to the bass. I found it to be ill defined, and up several db from what is on the recording. Flat frequency response is what I look for in a source component. The APL Denon having "the same bass as DV-50 now"- I'm not sure what that really means. Was the APL Denon bass deficient? I'm sorry for being such an SOB. But cloning the bass response of a DV-50 is not an "upgrade". Improving bass control, definition, detail, accuracy, separation, freq response would be.
GC- Apology accepted. |
Avguru, the currently offered mod for DV-50 is all solid state, no tubes inside. The intro price is $1495. While the unit was here, I figured that I can install the tube mod in it as well. The thing is that the tube has to be exposed on the top of the player. I can mange to hide it inside, but in that case ventilation holes are must. If DV-50 owners agree with the above conditions and want to go for the reference tube mod, then yes, it will cost $3200 as for the Denon.
I was inspired by the killer bass performance of the DV-50 which surpassed the Denon. Of course, I have quickly figured why is that and the Denon has been already updated. Yes, it has the same bass as DV-50 now...:-)
The DV-50 mod is for owners who like the appearance of the unit and other features and would like to take its performance level to new heights. For those who don't care about appearance or are on a budget, the 3910 would be the better option. I am not convinced that fully modded DV-50 will outperform fully modded 3910. I like Sony DSP which is used by the Denon while the Teac uses Pioneer DSP.
Regards,
Alex |
REB1208, my apologies for my previous attempt at humor. No offense intended. But I suspect that any APL 3910 equivalent contracted by Alex to an oversees jobber may end costing the consumer quite a bit more than what Alex is currently charging. |
Reb 1208,
Your point is well taken about spending $5,500 for a DV 50, having it modded for another $3,000 and then taking a tremendous hit on resell value when you decide to sell.
That's commonly referred to as taking a bath!
I think if you talk to Alex he even realizes that and therefore would be the first to agree it makes more sense to sell you his modified 3910 @$4,200 rather than modding a DV 50. However, there are some DV 50 owners out there who might be thinking about upgrading to an UX1 or X01 and therefore would be attracted to spending $3,000.00 on a mod as opposed to spending $8,000.00 for an upgaded model.
Whichever way you go...it ain't cheap! I have a couple of bars of soap that I can throw in for free for those looking to take the plunge!
AVGURU |
Good point Alex, I understand now your choice for UX-3. Will you preserve the balanced output on it? Looking forward to your clocking surprise for the new year! |
Guidocorona, I thought the X-03 is just SACD/CD player, no DVD-A. I would rather go with Universal machine as UX-3 is.
On the clock issue, my Master Clock specs are pretty much as good as you can get - Zero PPM stability and 50 pS jitter. Of course, as I mentioned before, clock matters to some point but there are other equally important factors when it comes to Digital. When it comes to CD/DAD/DVD-A (PCM) playback, I have a little surprise coming early next year. It's a secret for now, but it will take care of all clocking and other issues with PCM...;-)
Regards,
Alex |
Reb1208: and of course the hypothetical Chinese contractor would do everything with no money up front, just so because they have read our entire thread and are so in love with the idea.
Not only, but as an added bonus they will send their top engineers to Alex to learn how to get it right, and will adopt all the strict quality control procedures that Alex applies--at no cost to Alex that is. This contractor will also promise on their ancestor's burial mound never to sell the box to someone else, just because they are so nice. And all of this without expensive contracts, intellectual property lawyers, and other costly administrative/legal fripperies. Finally, this contractor is so incredibily flexible, that every time Alex improves his design, they will turn on a dime and make all needed changes seemlesly, with a 1-week turnaround on all boxes on the assembly line, and needless to say, at no additional cost to APL. Sounds like a fab idea to me! |
I think it's time for APL to change his business model. Taking a 5,500 machine, gutting it- and then completely "rebuilding" it? Would anyone actually fall prey to that logic. Here is what does make sence. Contract with a company in China to have these APL players built up from scratch. Charge a fair amount, IMO that would be no more than 2k. And sell them by the boat load. IF APL is that good, then this should be a no-brainer decision. |
I would first and foremost like to thank Steve (711smilin') for pointing me to this direction and Alex for such a great mod. I'd also like to thank AVGURU for starting this thread.
After speaking to Steve a few times, I came away with the impression that he is nothing more than an enthusiatic person, generously willing to share his knowledge and experience. Maybe bob47 and Jes45 should have spoken to him first before making their comments. Or maybe they should demo the 3910. I also know Bon(Jactoy) from conversations last year.
I was able to demo the DV50S a week before the 3910 arrived. While the video was excellent, 2ch was not up to par with my PMDT/Audio Note 2.1x bal dac combo, even when using the balanced outs. The 3910 bettered my previous combo around the 25 hour mark. I can't wait for 300 hours. I won't even attempt to write an extended review. I cannot say it any better than AVGURU, but musicality, depth and holographic imaging really comes to mind. There were a few things I liked more about the DV50S. Build quality and looks for one thing (hey, at least I admit it). DVD soundtracks thru the digital out seemed a bit more dynamic and punchy. User interface is also smoother with the DV50S. Maybe Alex will work on the digital issue next ;-)
Thanks again Alex and Steve. I am smilin' with you. |
Thank you Alex, but why UX-3 instead of the slightly cheaper X-03? Does UX-3 offer you--as a developer--some advantages?
Concerning clocks I can only report hearsay: the Verona is said to improve significantly the sound of the DCS stack. Only by inference I hope that would extend to the Teac clocks, and of course to your new internal clock. Would the Teac clock be better than your killer clock or viceversa? I have no idea, of course. Perhaps our Iron Audiofools in Chicago will tell us one day which clocked CDP will "Reign Supreme!" That is why this amazing field is so much fun, even vicariously! |
Dbld, sure, just let me know when you're ready.
The mod affects just the Stereo RCA outputs. Sorry, the Balanced output gets disabled too.
Regards,
Alex |
Guidocorona, yes, 711 Smilin will eventually have a demo unit, or may be AVGURU will wolunteer with his Teac. The first DV-50 just went out to Texas so you will hear about it soon...:-)
UX-3 supposedly comes with the real VRDS transport. It is universal machine so it plays everything. I would assume that, just like the DV-50, the UX-3 will have "Display off" and "Video off" so I am not concerned about any interferrences.
Since DSD stream is not allowed out of the SACD players, I am not interested in any other format they convert SACD for digital transmossion, so I do not care for external DACs. Also, why you would like to re-clock? Are you going to be running a production studio with "house clock" so you need to sync the UX-3 to it?...:-) The other case would be If you have high jitter clock in your given Digital machine so you need to re-clock it. Tell me what you think; is it better to have a killer clock to begin with or it is better to re-clock? So, I do not care about the re-clocking either...:-)
Regards,
Alex
|
Gee...Thanks Alex :-)! Something to shoot for down the road for my DV-50 I guess.
Does your DV-50 mod effect the multi-channel aspect of this player...or the video?
Dave |
ALEX, this thread is becoming hotter than You KnoWhat! Time for me to go and take a very long icycold shower, lest I perform some embarrassing act over the phone, involving colorful plastic cards and authorization codes, wich I may regret after eventual spousal disclosure!!!
Will you send an evaluation unit of the moded DV50 to SMILIN eventually?
I'd be curious to know why you ordered UX-3 instead of X-03 to modify: X-03 is more of a purely audio device.
Furthermore, If I remember correctly these new units may support an external DAC directly, as well as an external word clock. You might be able to perform your magic by connecting purely external boxes, which in turn would likely also be compatible with X-01. |
Guys, I am finally ready with the DV-50. I am posting this in reply to all of you who wanted to know how this project turns out. All I can say is WOW!!! Since none of the original circuitry for the Stereo part is used, the original sonic character of the machine is gone. The entire upsampling part for CD which turns out is the contributor to the "one dimensional", artificial and sterile CD sound is completely out of the picture. The original DACs and Analog stage are gone too. This thing is so full, three dimensional, lush and musical that is scary. I am glad it costs $5K because it would seriously hurt my Denon sales otherwise...:-). Yes, it is coming VERY close to the Denon. You can not believe there is no tube inside the DV-50. Now Alex can't wait to get the new UX-3 which is on order already...:-)
My web site will be updated with more details about the DV-50 mod soon. Stay tuned!
Happy Holidays!
Alex |
Brian,
Tomorrow Jactoy, 1MarkR and I are having a mini-shoot-out at my house. We will be comparing the Esoteric UX1 against Bon's Sony modwright, Mark's Audio Aero Dac and my DV 50.
We will try to hold another shoot-out later including you, 711 and a few others in the area who have indicated an interested in attending. Hopefully the next time we arrange something all parties can be present.
I know its a last minute invitation but if you're free tomorrow afternoon around 2 p.m. you're welcome to attend. Send me an e-mail if you've misplaced my phone number.
AVGURU |
Guys, sorry I had to postpone the shootout, but let's get together soon. We had an awesome day today with the demo, driving the Sound Labs with Atma-Sphere, Wolcott, CAT, and Parasound amps. I have the photos to prove it :-)
Brian |
Mark, Brian postponed the shootout, He is busy.But
whenever you are available let me know.I can
let you listen to my Sony.Since you live close.Avguru
is going to Quintessence to get the UX1, I am
trying to go to his place to compare the Sony,
in his own system,Let me know, whats in your
mine, just to meet Charles is already a blessing. |
Hey AVGuru, Jayctoy,
Anything happening this weekend? Haven't heard from you guys. |
Aldavis,
No disrepect was intended on my part either. We're just having a friendly disagreement. Please stay tuned to our thread. We need informed people such as yourself. The fact that you re-read my response and then checked with Conrad Johnson lets me know that you have no hidden agenda and are only in search of the truth!
AVGURU |
avguru,
You are correct.I misread your post.Lew at CJ says balanced can't be done with their tube pre's so we'll never know.So far no ones balanced pre's have clearly bettered CJ's rca pre's which I guess was my point.It's a side issue
and a fine point so I won't waste any more time on it .No disrespect intended. |
Thanks again Alex about the DV50 info. If anyone has info about Esoteric X-01 balanced implementation, please post it here. |
Springbok10, that's why soon I will have the Balanced out option.
Regards,
Alex |
Guidocorona, DV-50 is Op Amp phase splitter. Not sure about X-01. The only "true balanced" machine I've seen so far is the EMM gear.
Regards,
Alex |
AVGURU, Alex and all: how is the balanced output circuitry of Esoteric DV50 and X-01 achieved? Op amps, phase splitting, or double circuitry? |
I agree with Avguru. I too have tried a DV-50, ML 32, Krell KMA 160 KMA single-ended vs balanced and the balanced was clearly "better" to my ears. So I went to a completely balanced pre-amp and amp that were designed to be balanced preferentially. (Atma-Sphere)I won't go back, which is why the APL 3910 is of less interest to me than it may be to those with single-ended systems. |
Aldavis,
You did not read my post very carefully. I specifically talked about units that were DESIGNED to sound better balanced. The units I made mention of were all made to sound better balanced. The owners manuals say the same.
Additionally, the better mfg's will offer a cdp that has both connections. The clear implication is go balanced for better fidelity...but should you not have a pre/pro with balanced inputs we will offer you rca's. That's a smart marketing move as they don't want to miss out on customers who may not have balanced ancillary equipment.
So, I never said RCA could not sound good or as good as balanced. I'm sure the two players you mentioned sound quite good from RCA outputs. What I am saying is that in the majority of cases where balanced ouputs are made available there will be a clear and audible improvement over rca...especially when both are offered on the same unit! That has definitely been my experience.
I'm dropping out of the "balanced vs. rca" argument because it gets away from the original motivation of my thread. Furthermore, I'm starting to see that many audiophiles out here don't have balanced equipment (or have never owned balanced equipment)so my argument falls on unqualified ears.
Unless you have owned multiple pre/pro's, amps and cdp's that offer both options and have compared them extensively (like I have) by switching back and forth between both connections you wouldn't know there is an advantage.
AVGURU |
Avguru,
The Conrad Johnson Act 2 and ART are single ended designs.They are(arguably) the best in the world.
NUFF SAID |
Thank you Alex for elaborating on your design philosophy. Guido |
Guidocorona, as I mentioned, there is no "true balanced" designs. Why balanced sounds better to many is because both phases are eventually added at the end - the speaker. Just like paralleling multiple devices (DACs, components, etc.) you are getting the sum of them which results in better sound. Wheter you are going to parallel two single ended stages or use balanced design, the end result (sonically) should be the same when it comes to home applpications. Of course, the balanced design rejects all kinds of common signals making it suitable for Pro requirements. To design a "true balanced" I will have to use two triodes driving the output transformer. This will create all kinds of problems due to tubes mismatch. Even if you get exactly matched tubes, they will deteriorate differently over their life span. This can be somewhat compensated by NFB but I don't like this idea. With the component-less single ended to balanced conversion, you will get exactly the same benefit of the so called "true balanced" designs (sonic-wise).
Regards,
Alex |
Oops, I just realized that my 3rd question may be misinterpreted as an insinuation that ModRight and Exemplar may be in the process of modifying a DV50. I have no such info, nor I have ever heard such a rumour. I meant to say that ModWright and Exemplar are using 2-chassis designs on some of their modified Denons and Sonys. |
Thanks Alex, but. . . what about my original questions:
questions:
1. Ignoring obvious cost increase considerations, have you thought of trying the feasibility/results of a 'traditional true balanced design.', just purely as a proof-of-concept/sonic test, of course.
2. How much cost to the end user would be added by such a design?
3. Concerning a purely hypothetical DV50 tube-based mod, you can always move some of the tube circuitry to an external chassis. That is I believe what ModWright and possibly Exemplar have done.
NOTE: Yes. . . of course. . . I know it already. . . you do not have to say it. . . I am a real pain! |
I could never listen thru a single ended pre-amp. Single ended source hooked to a balanced pre-amp can be ok though, depending on the design. Phono stages, for example- not much choice there. Balanced cd playback often helps free the medium from the "closed in" sound that is it's hallmark. And, certainly the balanced pre-amp should be hooked to a balanced amp. Even if that amp is not true differential. Balanced (differential) pre-amps IME, allow the system to achieve superior: Soundstage, defined images, tighter more accurate bass, lower noise floor, wider dynamic range. All without loosing musicality, if done right. |
OK guys, I uderstand and agree with all of you. This is the reason why I will soon offer the Balanced outputs while the Single Ended RCA will remain intact...:-)
Regards,
Alex |
