Your welcome.
I also got through to Antek on the R-Core question. As usual, market forces determine what they sell/manufacture - and they only get around ten requests for R-Cores per year from domestic customers. He was not aware of any manufacturer outside of China.
So it appears if we in the States want some we have to pay for the boat ride across the pond.
I also got through to Antek on the R-Core question. As usual, market forces determine what they sell/manufacture - and they only get around ten requests for R-Cores per year from domestic customers. He was not aware of any manufacturer outside of China.
So it appears if we in the States want some we have to pay for the boat ride across the pond.
Last edited:
Each component in BOM gives an improment.
If you really have to choose I would start from LPF components and voltage regulators.
No Blindfold Necessary -
To my ears, there are enough differences between optical and BNC feed to clearly hear what's being used. The optical is quite a bit cleaner and precise. That comes at the cost of a good amount of "flavor" that flows over BNC/RG59. The optical sounds like the speakers were moved 3 to 6 feet away from the listener while BNC sounds like your inside the performance if the recording has that character. What is most noticeable to me is the reduction of the bottom end with optical. It will take more listening to figure out if that is simply less or a better balance. Cymbals in a jazz group are crisp and wonderfully detailed but lack some inner resonance.
The Toslink is very sensitive to a bad/loose fit in the socket and the LEDs on the board flash intermittently at plugin, as though a sync operation is settling in. BNC is as solid as can be with it's self-locking/self-aligning design. For a good comparison, I used a 20ft Toslink as the BNC is 18ft. I will move the computer closer to the DAC/Amp to test with standard 3ft interconnects in a day or so.
I'm sorry to keep doing this, but I honestly don't know which I prefer at the moment. I am suspecting there will be a difference in ear fatigue over long sessions but that will take a few days to determine. I'm still thinking the extra circuitry needed at both ends of the optical link has to do some filtering in the translation to and from light. That's two extra steps.
So in short - IMHO, the Optical sounds like a very precise and detailed high quality audio system. The BNC - though maybe a touch "messy" in comparison - gets my vote for warmth and realism. Oh the choices.
One thing I am sure of - the combination of the Mini2496 and the FE amps is great if the sound of interconnects can be heard so easily.
_
To my ears, there are enough differences between optical and BNC feed to clearly hear what's being used. The optical is quite a bit cleaner and precise. That comes at the cost of a good amount of "flavor" that flows over BNC/RG59. The optical sounds like the speakers were moved 3 to 6 feet away from the listener while BNC sounds like your inside the performance if the recording has that character. What is most noticeable to me is the reduction of the bottom end with optical. It will take more listening to figure out if that is simply less or a better balance. Cymbals in a jazz group are crisp and wonderfully detailed but lack some inner resonance.
The Toslink is very sensitive to a bad/loose fit in the socket and the LEDs on the board flash intermittently at plugin, as though a sync operation is settling in. BNC is as solid as can be with it's self-locking/self-aligning design. For a good comparison, I used a 20ft Toslink as the BNC is 18ft. I will move the computer closer to the DAC/Amp to test with standard 3ft interconnects in a day or so.
I'm sorry to keep doing this, but I honestly don't know which I prefer at the moment. I am suspecting there will be a difference in ear fatigue over long sessions but that will take a few days to determine. I'm still thinking the extra circuitry needed at both ends of the optical link has to do some filtering in the translation to and from light. That's two extra steps.
So in short - IMHO, the Optical sounds like a very precise and detailed high quality audio system. The BNC - though maybe a touch "messy" in comparison - gets my vote for warmth and realism. Oh the choices.
One thing I am sure of - the combination of the Mini2496 and the FE amps is great if the sound of interconnects can be heard so easily.
_
Attachments
Last edited:
Forgot closeup. And after a couple full orchestral pieces that signature "James Bond" effect (master movie mix) sounds spectacular on the optical. The bottom is definitely present but for the first time in months, I though about hooking a sub back in the system. The fingers and crack on harp crescendos are just super
Attachments
Last edited:
Hey erin, no doubt some adjustments could be made. Do you have any suggestions on powering alternatives and grounding? I hadn't planned on using the screw terminals that came separate with the module, but did so for convenience in swapping for the comparisons. As Dario pointed out this piece, I will defer to his experience and curiosity about changing the parts on the module. I don't yet have the knowledge to make those calls.
I put my integrated build on hold when the FE process started but most likely will put all components including a computer in very close proximity to keep all interconnects as short (inches) as possible.
The optical in no way sounds bad and I hope I didn't give that impression. Quite the opposite - it feels like choosing between two excellent technologies based on subjective preferences and associated equipment - again. I honestly don't think I'll ever find the "perfect" system but will end up with a couple of options tuned to the current need - 2 ch stereo for music vs 5.1 for movies, adding or removing a sub based on program material - as examples. To me, all the DIY helps maximize/optimize the various elements. There is a good possibility both optical and BNC will be available in the final mix.
I put my integrated build on hold when the FE process started but most likely will put all components including a computer in very close proximity to keep all interconnects as short (inches) as possible.
The optical in no way sounds bad and I hope I didn't give that impression. Quite the opposite - it feels like choosing between two excellent technologies based on subjective preferences and associated equipment - again. I honestly don't think I'll ever find the "perfect" system but will end up with a couple of options tuned to the current need - 2 ch stereo for music vs 5.1 for movies, adding or removing a sub based on program material - as examples. To me, all the DIY helps maximize/optimize the various elements. There is a good possibility both optical and BNC will be available in the final mix.
Attachments
Last edited:
Hi Bob,
I don't think I'll ever touch those modules... they're are very good quality from start, IMHO.
The only two components that could be improved are the two ceramics, maybe using SM instead.
O.K. I also heard more lower third heft using BNC when compared to RCA. Don't know how much of that is specific to my computer.
One thing I forgot to mention is my Windows 7 configuration/MB uses two different drivers for optical and the BNC output that have to be selected in the control panel. That's another reason I'll probably keep both.
One thing I forgot to mention is my Windows 7 configuration/MB uses two different drivers for optical and the BNC output that have to be selected in the control panel. That's another reason I'll probably keep both.
Last edited:
