Hi,
Ta...
I'm busy reading:
PC-SHANLING
Ironically someone else just started a thread on the same basic question in the "Tubes" division of the forum.
Cheers,
Ta...
I'm busy reading:
PC-SHANLING
Ironically someone else just started a thread on the same basic question in the "Tubes" division of the forum.
Cheers,
fdegrove said:
Tell that to TBIGC brigade. They sware that tube buffer substantially improves the GC amp. The whole test was done with a GC amp. I don't know, how that would come out with other amps, although the guy is using those Lumleys (Megavox 150) daily, and also claims bigger gains with tube output.
BTW, I just reported what I've heard. I will not investigate why, as I don't really care.
JUST WHEN I THOUGHT I'D HAVE AN EASY NIGHT...
Hi,
In general, solid state or tube, having buffered inputs and outputs never is a bad idea in theory.
Using a tubed buffer one can alter the harmonic distortion spectrum of the entire spectrum towards the more benign predominantly even order side of things.
Buffers isolate, are 100% local feedback and can drive the input capacitance of the next stage, including cable parasitic capacitance, with ample current to overcome any adverse effect of it.
Only one device could possibly better this IMO, a well designed OPT.
Then again, good iron never comes cheap.
Just my 2 cents,
Hi,
In general, solid state or tube, having buffered inputs and outputs never is a bad idea in theory.
Using a tubed buffer one can alter the harmonic distortion spectrum of the entire spectrum towards the more benign predominantly even order side of things.
Buffers isolate, are 100% local feedback and can drive the input capacitance of the next stage, including cable parasitic capacitance, with ample current to overcome any adverse effect of it.
Only one device could possibly better this IMO, a well designed OPT.
Then again, good iron never comes cheap.
Just my 2 cents,
Don't forget that I was using S&B 102 TVC. So I already had iron and buffering in there.
But seriously, that tube version sounded really good, there was no question about it. Especially the separation between instruments, pace and overall liquidity. The highs might not have been that natural and digital free, but the other virtues made up for that. The SS version sounded average, nothing to write home about. My DAC was somwhere in between
But seriously, that tube version sounded really good, there was no question about it. Especially the separation between instruments, pace and overall liquidity. The highs might not have been that natural and digital free, but the other virtues made up for that. The SS version sounded average, nothing to write home about. My DAC was somwhere in between
Hi,
I had not forgotten already, just thought the S&B was only used with your own DAC...You used it with the Shanling as well as with your own DAC, than?
Am I correct in thinking the S&B TVC is built inside the rectangular wooden boxes with the VPI bricks on top of them as shown in the last pic you posted?
Too bad you didn't compare the unit with and without the S&B, it may very well be a major contributor to the final outcome.
Cheers,
I had not forgotten already, just thought the S&B was only used with your own DAC...You used it with the Shanling as well as with your own DAC, than?
Am I correct in thinking the S&B TVC is built inside the rectangular wooden boxes with the VPI bricks on top of them as shown in the last pic you posted?
Too bad you didn't compare the unit with and without the S&B, it may very well be a major contributor to the final outcome.
Cheers,
I still didn't check the actual effect of SN74179. I will probably do it today, take it out and short the pins. The triplets were also added at this chip (SN74179) and I noticed that any changes to PS here were as noticable as on the receiver chip.
I also placed 1k5 Riken for Rref and it sounds better (than Dale I had before), more open and very smooth.
I also placed 1k5 Riken for Rref and it sounds better (than Dale I had before), more open and very smooth.
Konnichiwa,
Well, on the T-100 you can read my review. On the T-200 I heard much less difference between the two than on the 100, though I found either player in stock condition to very listenable, but a little less open than ideal. Swapping the Op-Amp's (they are socketed) for SMD OPA627's on Adapters improved things a little for the T-200 and a lot for the T-100 (there are more Op-Amp's to change on the 100 and no silicon volume control chip).
In short, the Tube stage (in both cases) sounds a little more pleasant but also a litte more opaque than the direct path from the Solid State circuitry. It makes the sound less edgy and grainy, but also less detailed, a little like a carefull use of the "soften" edit command in Photoshop. the effect in the stock units however is small and with the OPA627's in I mostly prefer the solid state output, as it becomes very grainless and holographic and the tube stage detracts from this (in typhical cathode follower manner).
Hmm. I repeat, the "tube" output is merely a cathode follower buffer following after the solid state circuitry. So if switching the daisychained tube section into the signalpath results in what you describe then the tube section must by defition be very additively manipulative with the sound (which is not the case in the stock units even with WE396A fitted).
What I do know about the PC mods is that they in general swap the good industrial quality parts for expensive audiophile boutique parts, often ones I find to be questionable in terms of sonic effects (e.g. parts which I would describe as "sonically manipulative"). The Tube Stage has two coupling capacitors (input & output) which could be replaced and at least according to underwood hifi are. Used are Auricaps and standard BGs, both of which are IMHO manipulative to a large degree and easily picked out against a wire bypass in a blind test.
So I guess you are mainly hearing the capacitors (and maybe resistors), as a guess and "your crowd" likes the results of using these. I have few doubts that the reaction in my system would be quite the reverse. Well, audio is indeed a funny old game.
Sayonara
Peter Daniel said:
Well, on the T-100 you can read my review. On the T-200 I heard much less difference between the two than on the 100, though I found either player in stock condition to very listenable, but a little less open than ideal. Swapping the Op-Amp's (they are socketed) for SMD OPA627's on Adapters improved things a little for the T-200 and a lot for the T-100 (there are more Op-Amp's to change on the 100 and no silicon volume control chip).
In short, the Tube stage (in both cases) sounds a little more pleasant but also a litte more opaque than the direct path from the Solid State circuitry. It makes the sound less edgy and grainy, but also less detailed, a little like a carefull use of the "soften" edit command in Photoshop. the effect in the stock units however is small and with the OPA627's in I mostly prefer the solid state output, as it becomes very grainless and holographic and the tube stage detracts from this (in typhical cathode follower manner).
Peter Daniel said:
Hmm. I repeat, the "tube" output is merely a cathode follower buffer following after the solid state circuitry. So if switching the daisychained tube section into the signalpath results in what you describe then the tube section must by defition be very additively manipulative with the sound (which is not the case in the stock units even with WE396A fitted).
What I do know about the PC mods is that they in general swap the good industrial quality parts for expensive audiophile boutique parts, often ones I find to be questionable in terms of sonic effects (e.g. parts which I would describe as "sonically manipulative"). The Tube Stage has two coupling capacitors (input & output) which could be replaced and at least according to underwood hifi are. Used are Auricaps and standard BGs, both of which are IMHO manipulative to a large degree and easily picked out against a wire bypass in a blind test.
So I guess you are mainly hearing the capacitors (and maybe resistors), as a guess and "your crowd" likes the results of using these. I have few doubts that the reaction in my system would be quite the reverse. Well, audio is indeed a funny old game.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
As much as you'd like to portray it as a funny game, to me it's not. I noticed that for some reason you are not in favour of BG caps, but so far you still didn't propose (to me, as I asked once) any other, better substitution. As to the OsCons, you seem to favour, I'd say those are very manipulative. I also know how AuriCaps sound and I agree that those are manipulative and personally, it's not my cap of tea. I find BG colored as well (although N type is IMO better than most film caps), but somehow I'm not tempted in this DAC to look for anything else. It just fits well in there.
I also fail to understand what your point with my assesment of Shanling is. Is it that the difference between the two outputs shouldn't be that big, or that my DAC should be better than the tube Shanling?
>>easily picked out against a wire bypass in a blind test<<
I can pick any cap in wire bypass test. Did you ever find one you couldn't?
PS: I was under the impression that there were also mods done to the digital section of the player, at least new clock added.
jean-paul said:
Well, yes and no. You can't raise the SNR ratio with the transformer (well, apart from some HF removal). So, still it is better to send out the S/P-DIF with a higher amplitude. But for the CS8412, the higher amplitude will be better. Still, it would be an interesting comparison to try 5V PP with no transformers and 0.5V PP with
BTW: I think the transformer is 1:4.
Yesterday, I was looking into this issue. I already realised that it will not work to send out S/P-DIF TTL signal and then also amplify it 4x!
Ciao,
Fedde
Kuei Yang Wang said:
To me the SS output sounded very mechanical and uninvolving. The tube output, wasn't softened in any way and was not lacking in detail. I also didn't noticed any artificial coloration that Auricaps usually add. What impressed me the most was the feeling of pace and rythm and separation between notes. That was the major difference to me, plus overall impression of greater liquidity and definition. It just sounded right.
I was also suprised with final result in sound comparison, knowing what's there inside. Honestly, I didn't expect Shanling to sound that good. The highs seemed to suffer slightly and were not completely free of digital artifacts and were maybe lacking a bit of resolution and softeness, but this was rather negligible.
Konnichiwa,
I am not in favour of most audiophile boutique parts, as they usually are very sonically intrusive. Such parts may at times help to compensate one coloration by adding another and such an approach may be acceptable in commercial gear where certain limits are inherent and where a simple parts swap might help generate a subjectively more pleasaing and listenable sound.
I find in many of the applications that I have generic mylar film capacitors to be less intrusive, which is not neccesarily the same as "better sound", though to me personally it is.
I am not as such "in favour of Os-Cons", I like to use them as part of a triplett style bypass combo as they have very well controlled parasitics that are consistent with age and production, something some competing parts do not offer. They are in certain applicatiosn the better part, but not in blanket terms. I would not employ in positions other than where digital supply lines are decoupled and then as part of a complete strategy.
They can be okay as coupling cap's when polarised, but in most cases cheap mylar is better, but often space does not allow such. BG's in coupling applications are disconsonant to my ears and listening habits, I can't stand them. The Os-Cons at least err on the side of ommision, no commission.
Yup.
Do not get me wrong, when "tuning" commercial gear either for individuals of for production variants I also tend to often specify parts I would not use in my personal gear, be it for reasons of a sound that appeals to the target market or due to space/cost constraints and such parts have included BG's, Jensen/AN PIO Cap's and pretty much the whole gammut of parts that I normally slam in public.
What I tend to object to is the usual "universal panacea to all sonic evils" agressive advertising attached to these parts and the often unthinking parroting of this plus claims of "improvements" (as opposed to "changes") and the implication that they are universally applicable and good that I object.
Especially parts that are highly manipulative sonically need to be employed with great care. Just blanket dumping them onto any give design because "they are good parts" usually leads to a highly unbalanced sound.
I remember one system and case where the removal of a severely impulse distorting, lowpassing part and a replacement with a "nearly flat to light" drastically unbalanced the sound, as the dark and shut in sound with the original item in place had been compensated for by choosing large numbers of very bright sounding (and expensive) boutique parts.
The result was that the objectively (and subjectively when a wire bypass was the reference) better part was percieved not as providing reduced colorations, but to introduce them, when in fact it revealed the colorations caused by the choice of other parts.
A mere commentray. I find it always interesting to contrast the technical happenstances to the perception. It gives more datapoints. And if you can expand on your perceptions and review them in light of the added hindsight sometimes one gets added data taht helps to "systematise" good sound and accurate sound (the two are not always the same).
Neither. It is merely to highlight that the percieved differences CAN only be the result of additive and subtractive colorations in the Tube stage (as the same entire solid state section is present in both cases). Moreover, these colorations are clearly NOT related to the "tubes adding pleasing distrtion", as the Buffers in the Shanlings have vanishingly low distortion levels.
With the added complications and stresses of a fully bind test I find certain types of capacitors are fairly hard to pick out with sufficient significance. They tend to be the ones I employ (same for resistors).
Hmmm. A "new clock" is as often a recipy for disaster as it is an improvement. However the clock would also affect both outputs.
Very interesting. it is this kind of thing i was "fishing" for.
When I reviewd the T-100 I organised comparisons to some quite extreme gear (some of this off teh record). I was extremely surprised just how good the stock T-100 really was. And to think that it is by comparison saddled with as convoluted and compromised a signal path. One wonders what it will sound like when changed to a single resistor as I/V followed by a simple Valve Analog stage.
Classic oversampling/delta-sigma Problems. The T-100 is better (IMHO) in that area, once you fitted the OPA627's (the most needed upgrade in the T-100, followed by WE 396As and all are "plug & play" and can be handled by most morons and all sensible audiphiles that can handle a screwdriver).
Sayonara
Peter Daniel said:
I am not in favour of most audiophile boutique parts, as they usually are very sonically intrusive. Such parts may at times help to compensate one coloration by adding another and such an approach may be acceptable in commercial gear where certain limits are inherent and where a simple parts swap might help generate a subjectively more pleasaing and listenable sound.
Peter Daniel said:
I find in many of the applications that I have generic mylar film capacitors to be less intrusive, which is not neccesarily the same as "better sound", though to me personally it is.
Peter Daniel said:
I am not as such "in favour of Os-Cons", I like to use them as part of a triplett style bypass combo as they have very well controlled parasitics that are consistent with age and production, something some competing parts do not offer. They are in certain applicatiosn the better part, but not in blanket terms. I would not employ in positions other than where digital supply lines are decoupled and then as part of a complete strategy.
They can be okay as coupling cap's when polarised, but in most cases cheap mylar is better, but often space does not allow such. BG's in coupling applications are disconsonant to my ears and listening habits, I can't stand them. The Os-Cons at least err on the side of ommision, no commission.
Peter Daniel said:
Yup.
Peter Daniel said:
Do not get me wrong, when "tuning" commercial gear either for individuals of for production variants I also tend to often specify parts I would not use in my personal gear, be it for reasons of a sound that appeals to the target market or due to space/cost constraints and such parts have included BG's, Jensen/AN PIO Cap's and pretty much the whole gammut of parts that I normally slam in public.
What I tend to object to is the usual "universal panacea to all sonic evils" agressive advertising attached to these parts and the often unthinking parroting of this plus claims of "improvements" (as opposed to "changes") and the implication that they are universally applicable and good that I object.
Especially parts that are highly manipulative sonically need to be employed with great care. Just blanket dumping them onto any give design because "they are good parts" usually leads to a highly unbalanced sound.
I remember one system and case where the removal of a severely impulse distorting, lowpassing part and a replacement with a "nearly flat to light" drastically unbalanced the sound, as the dark and shut in sound with the original item in place had been compensated for by choosing large numbers of very bright sounding (and expensive) boutique parts.
The result was that the objectively (and subjectively when a wire bypass was the reference) better part was percieved not as providing reduced colorations, but to introduce them, when in fact it revealed the colorations caused by the choice of other parts.
Peter Daniel said:
A mere commentray. I find it always interesting to contrast the technical happenstances to the perception. It gives more datapoints. And if you can expand on your perceptions and review them in light of the added hindsight sometimes one gets added data taht helps to "systematise" good sound and accurate sound (the two are not always the same).
Peter Daniel said:
Neither. It is merely to highlight that the percieved differences CAN only be the result of additive and subtractive colorations in the Tube stage (as the same entire solid state section is present in both cases). Moreover, these colorations are clearly NOT related to the "tubes adding pleasing distrtion", as the Buffers in the Shanlings have vanishingly low distortion levels.
Peter Daniel said:
With the added complications and stresses of a fully bind test I find certain types of capacitors are fairly hard to pick out with sufficient significance. They tend to be the ones I employ (same for resistors).
Peter Daniel said:
Hmmm. A "new clock" is as often a recipy for disaster as it is an improvement. However the clock would also affect both outputs.
Peter Daniel said:
Very interesting. it is this kind of thing i was "fishing" for.
Peter Daniel said:
When I reviewd the T-100 I organised comparisons to some quite extreme gear (some of this off teh record). I was extremely surprised just how good the stock T-100 really was. And to think that it is by comparison saddled with as convoluted and compromised a signal path. One wonders what it will sound like when changed to a single resistor as I/V followed by a simple Valve Analog stage.
Peter Daniel said:
Classic oversampling/delta-sigma Problems. The T-100 is better (IMHO) in that area, once you fitted the OPA627's (the most needed upgrade in the T-100, followed by WE 396As and all are "plug & play" and can be handled by most morons and all sensible audiphiles that can handle a screwdriver).
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
At the end, it seems like we agree on most issues.
I was designing that DAC as a commercial venture. That was the reason I placed all major components (active and passive) on sockets, so I could easily change them and compare.
And I will say, that if one thinks that randomly picking "exotic" parts is the answer to a good sound, I can only laugh. Careful selection and matching is the only key to achieving satisfactory resulst with those parts. Even such thing as proper orientation of non polar electrolytics (all caps actually) is very important. Otherwise the sound will be bright, boomy, unfocus and probably worse that using more commonly available components.
My coupling cap of choice presently is Siemens MKV, but big size prevents using it in many designs, especially the small ones I currently favour.
Yes, Shanling is a very good player, and properly upgraded it can probably match the best out there
PS: I think that further explanation is required. We were listening to the tube output most of the time, and switched to SS output only for a short period of time, without any extensive sessions. It was my first impression that the SS output wasn't at par with both tube output and my DAC, as was also the opinion of the Shanling's owner. This opinion could somehaow bias my view as well. To properly judge that more listening would be definitely reguired.
SN75179
Peter Daniel,
From discussions on this forum and with ELSO Kwak, it seems that SN75179 would not be a good choice for reciever/transmitter for the CS8412. This is due to the presence of a schmitt trigger on its input, which according to Jocko Homo and others will tend to inject trash back into the transmission line. A superior solution (I've not tried it) would seem to use the AD8561 fast comparator, which Elso describes as being used for :
1) it converts the signal to a balanced signal. The CS8412 likes to be driven differentially.
2) It prevents the Schmidt trigger in the CS8412 from spitting back into the
transmission line.
3) it converts the 0.5V p-p signal of SPDIF to logic level signal. The
CS8412 likes to driven by logic level signals.
Ryan
Peter Daniel,
From discussions on this forum and with ELSO Kwak, it seems that SN75179 would not be a good choice for reciever/transmitter for the CS8412. This is due to the presence of a schmitt trigger on its input, which according to Jocko Homo and others will tend to inject trash back into the transmission line. A superior solution (I've not tried it) would seem to use the AD8561 fast comparator, which Elso describes as being used for :
1) it converts the signal to a balanced signal. The CS8412 likes to be driven differentially.
2) It prevents the Schmidt trigger in the CS8412 from spitting back into the
transmission line.
3) it converts the 0.5V p-p signal of SPDIF to logic level signal. The
CS8412 likes to driven by logic level signals.
Ryan
Idea
Very good Peter.
Follow your own guts feeling and build something original.
Peter Daniel said:I'd rather trust Kusunoki.
I was considering AD8561, but eventually decided on SN75179 (only because Kusunoki used it).
But it would be interesting if somebody tried both. OTOH, Elso claims VHC logic chips are better, and to me thay sound inferior
I'm not listening to anybody now.
Very good Peter.
Follow your own guts feeling and build something original.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.