1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

MDAC First Listen (part 00111001)

Discussion in 'audio' started by ti33er, Sep 12, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    <moderating>

    Post deleted.

    Again I ask that people without any stake in this matter please refrain from sniping from the sidelines. If I were to remove the thread as you seem to suggest all you would have achieved is to deny the real stake-holders here a public platform. That is not your call to make.
     
    jarip, misterdog, EIffel and 8 others like this.
  2. DANOFDANGER

    DANOFDANGER pfm Member

    I really like the direction of discrete dac. I feel its a better way. Thanks for the update.

    To be ohnest i dont even look at the facebook group. Its just not constructed well enough for these types of conversations. So i still check in here from time to time.
     
  3. BE718

    BE718 pfm Member

    Oh dont worry Ill beoff again soon, just passing through and marvelling with utter incredulity that this is still going on and that some are still, not only tolerating it, but clearly defensive of it.

    Relying on the specifics of the AUP, and ignoring there is obviously something very wrong going on here, is somewhat a blinkered or selective pov.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018
    Stilgoe1972 and HarryB like this.
  4. moosemeat

    moosemeat pfm Member

    Likewise.
     
  5. Discovery

    Discovery pfm Member

    Why, Harry? Why?
     
  6. banjoman

    banjoman pfm Member


    John

    I am fully paid up for Level 3 (or whatever the highest level) FDAC but instead of waiting even longer for the FDAC, would rather take the proposed MDAC2 DDA. Any action needed to allow this or will you be giving us FDAC supporters the option to get the MDAC2 (I dont have a donor unit any more) in the new chassis when the timing is right?
     
  7. JohnW

    JohnW pfm member

    Yes correct, FDAC owners will invited to join the MDAC2 as the MDAC2 PCB will be reused in the FDAC.

    The Universal Chassis is the solution for the MDAC2 PCB for those without donor MDAC units.
     
  8. JohnW

    JohnW pfm member

    I fully agree, message threads get buried on FB... its really for teenagers to talk about nothing important...
     
    andykchapman likes this.
  9. s1h1

    s1h1 performing within expectations

    Will the streamer board be reused in the FDAC too?
     
  10. JohnW

    JohnW pfm member

    Most likely not as I'd like to see an internal SSD drive bay on the FDAC and maybe a option to add an internal CDRom slot loader.
     
  11. adamdea

    adamdea You are not a sound quality evaluation device

    It is a recurrent topic around these parts that it a shame for the 100% of supporters, decent or indecent, that they have been messed around for 4 1/2 years and have nothing to show for their money.
     
  12. JohnW

    JohnW pfm member

    Sorry Fred, your post got buried:-

    1. PMD200 will be offered with one of the modulator options.

    2. There is NO active analogue output stage - essentially the DD2A discrete DAC array directly drives the output transformer for the simplest and most direct signal path (Direct Digital 2 Analog conversion) - as there is no output stage there is no position for a Tube.

    3. REQ, maybe as an option (DSP) for the FDAC, but most likely we will customize a MiniDSP board. DSP IS NOT recommended for best sound quality.

    4. CD-DRV, Maybe a slot loader will be offered with the Streamer option installed.
     
  13. s1h1

    s1h1 performing within expectations

    OK. So the streamer board is required with the DD2A (in the universal chassis), but probably not used in the FDAC. Finding a donor MDAC would be a better option for me than the universal chassis.
     
  14. BigDog

    BigDog pfm Member

    So, I guess this means that the CNC compartmented chassis is off the table!?

    Since isolation of the 3 stages was integral to the original design presumably to benefit the detoxification, how will this issue be addressed in a "build box"?

    As one who was willing to overlook potential cosmetics of a Chinese CNC chassis as well as offering to install the numerous machine screws myself, all I can say is disappointed am I!
     
  15. JohnW

    JohnW pfm member

    I've just had a long conversation with the Detox chassie vendor, and the milled Detox chassis is still on the cards... the production engineer is just wrapping up a project and will then start work on Detox.
     
  16. fred sonnen

    fred sonnen pfm Member

    Hallo John

    Thanks again
    So the PMD100 some of us bought and send you are are no longer useful. Will you offer the PMD200 then?
    No output stage no headphone use case?
    One thought I forgot: The DETOX. How and in which way will this be intergratet / reuse or interact with the FDAC?
    DSP vs. SQ I am with you ;-)
     
  17. banjoman

    banjoman pfm Member

    Great.
    Thanks
     
  18. dtd

    dtd pfm Member

    There is some good news in all of this - the top of the line design just became a lot cheaper.

    Currently have a discrete DSD DAC myself (T+A DAC 8 DSD). I home demo'd the Chord DAVE against my current DAC with all audio up sampled to DSD 512 via HQPlayer. The DAVE was edged out unbelievably by the discrete DSD DAC, in depth plane, dynamic response and presence. Neck and neck in all other respects.

    The catch? Need a beefy PC to upsample to DSD512 (at one of the faster i7 quads), HQPlayer on certain filters can add delays to startup times (i.e. cold start is 20s, switching rate families another 5-6s), and upgrade the USB output to something much better suited to audio tasks.

    For the record I was willing to switch to the DAVE to get rid of the "hassle" of running HQPlayer and a PC... so wanted it to win.

    It should be stated that the DAVE would win no problem against the T+A if HQPlayer upsampling to DSD 512 wasn't active.

    Conclusion? Discrete DSD implementations can be a significant step up, especially with the right modulator.
     
    ti33er likes this.
  19. ti33er

    ti33er pfm Member

    Looking forward to this...so bored with my OPPO BDP-105 Sabre DAC, clinical and bright presentation ...I’ve hardly listened to music in years now (been watching lots of movies instead)
     
  20. Rune

    Rune pfm Member

    Was it only better when upsampling to DSD512 or would upsample to something much more sensible like DSD64 or DSD128 also sound better?

    I would expect it to also be better just playing native resolution.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice