Has anyone tried the Vishay s102 resistors in the I/V position of their DAC?
How does it compare to Caddock, Riken, Dale, etc?
Thanks,
KT
How does it compare to Caddock, Riken, Dale, etc?
Thanks,
KT
You can read about it here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=487490&highlight=#post487490
S102s where the first resistors I tried in my NOS DAC, I didn't like them much.
S102s where the first resistors I tried in my NOS DAC, I didn't like them much.
KT said:Has anyone tried the Vishay s102 resistors in the I/V position of their DAC?
How does it compare to Caddock, Riken, Dale, etc?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike Peter, I have done comparisons as a series resistor in a passive preamp. I prefer the S102k, then Dale. Don't like the brighyter sound of Caddocks or the less refined sound of the Rikkens.
I see where Pater is coming from.
Incidentally the resistors are directional and you should check by reversing it in use.
I was indicating specific application, I/V resistor in NOS DAC. In that position Vishay S102 was simply no good, same for Caddock MK132.
For series signal application, like passive volume control, I also prefer Vishay S102 over Riken, Dale and Caddock, however to me, the S102 always sounded too laid back. Some people say it's neutrality, I think it's too much damping from the plastic case. For series application, my first choice is TX2352, although it's a bit bright as well.
For a shunt application, in passive volume control in front of GC amp, nothing beats MK132, I still don't know why 😉
For series signal application, like passive volume control, I also prefer Vishay S102 over Riken, Dale and Caddock, however to me, the S102 always sounded too laid back. Some people say it's neutrality, I think it's too much damping from the plastic case. For series application, my first choice is TX2352, although it's a bit bright as well.
For a shunt application, in passive volume control in front of GC amp, nothing beats MK132, I still don't know why 😉
Ted,
I see you like them in the I/V position very much. Especially the even higher specced green variety.
Translated page - http://tinyurl.com/37he
How do they compare in the I/V position vs. the Riken?
I have Vishay S102k in the I/V position of my Scott Nixon DacKit. I think the dac sounds good, though I can't say that it wouldn't sound better with something else, like Riken or Caddock TF020. I haven't tried in the DacKit.
I did replace the stock generic metal film I/V and ref. voltage resistors in my Monica II dac a few days ago, however, with Caddock TF020. I also replaced the stock generic metal film constant current resistor with Caddock MK132.
The sound is cleaner and clearer but softer sounding. At the same time, however, the sound is less lush and alive. Kind of flat and doesn't breathe as much. It probably needs to burn in further, but right now it's not quite as involving. Maybe it would sound better if the constant current resistor were changed to Riken? Maybe just needs more burn in?
We'll see in a few weeks.
Best,
KT
I see you like them in the I/V position very much. Especially the even higher specced green variety.
Translated page - http://tinyurl.com/37he
How do they compare in the I/V position vs. the Riken?
I have Vishay S102k in the I/V position of my Scott Nixon DacKit. I think the dac sounds good, though I can't say that it wouldn't sound better with something else, like Riken or Caddock TF020. I haven't tried in the DacKit.
I did replace the stock generic metal film I/V and ref. voltage resistors in my Monica II dac a few days ago, however, with Caddock TF020. I also replaced the stock generic metal film constant current resistor with Caddock MK132.
The sound is cleaner and clearer but softer sounding. At the same time, however, the sound is less lush and alive. Kind of flat and doesn't breathe as much. It probably needs to burn in further, but right now it's not quite as involving. Maybe it would sound better if the constant current resistor were changed to Riken? Maybe just needs more burn in?
We'll see in a few weeks.
Best,
KT
RIKEN registers RXG,RMG,PSNB
I made some D/A boards used 1/2W 1% RIKEN registers, before Vishays.
RMG(Metal Film)
RMG(Low Noise Carbon)
PSNB(Carbon)
I choice Vishay bulkmetalfoil series registers. Vishay's noise figure and sound quality are better than Riken 1%RMG or 1%RXG.
By the way, RMG carbon registers are dis-continue Dec.2005.
http://www.rikendengu.co.jp/doc/audio.pdf
I made some D/A boards used 1/2W 1% RIKEN registers, before Vishays.
RMG(Metal Film)
RMG(Low Noise Carbon)
PSNB(Carbon)
I choice Vishay bulkmetalfoil series registers. Vishay's noise figure and sound quality are better than Riken 1%RMG or 1%RXG.
By the way, RMG carbon registers are dis-continue Dec.2005.
http://www.rikendengu.co.jp/doc/audio.pdf
Question for Peter D.
Hi Peter,
I looked on the AudioSector thread recently and saw the photo you posted of the DAC. Looks very nice!
I noticed that you use the Caddock TF020's as I/V resistors. How long did you have to burn them in before they fully came alive?
I ask because I replaced the stock generic metal film I/V resistors in my Monica II dac recently with Caddock TF020 (as well as TF020 for ref. voltage resistor; I also used Caddock MK132 as constant current source resistor).
It didn't sound too good at first - bright and hashy on top and lacking in bass quantity, tightness, and impact. Music sounded stiff and artificial. Also somewhat disorganized and not much air or separation around insturments. The thing that bothered me most was the shift in tonal balance - all the sudden the spotlight went to the upper-mids and treble and the bass was a lot quieter and lacking in oomph or impact. It didn't make for a very engaging sound - not much better than a cheap boombox, really.
I hooked it up a few days ago to the digital output of my Roku Soundbridge (similar to Squeezebox) so I could send a continuous signal through it without burning up my transport motor. Well, it's starting to sound better - hashy treble has smoothed out and the rhythm and pacing has really picked up again. Thing are sounding much more organized and cohesive. Bass is just starting to show signs of returning but is not back to a proper balance with the treble yet. Also, the sense of air and space is returning but not quite back to pre-mod levels.
If these things return, I will be happy. It seems the Caddock TF020 has contributed a level of focus, intensity, and drive to the sound that would be a good thing if these other aspects return. Most important right now is the tonal balance. That light, soft, quiet, indistinct bass is really bothersome.
How long did observe the burn-in period for these resistors was, Peter? Also, did you notice a big difference flipping the orientation of the TF020's? If so, which side did you use as the input side?
Depending on how things work out, I may replace the constant current source resistor (Caddock MK132) with either a Shinkoh tantalum or Riken to see if that evens out the tonal balance.
Thanks a lot,
KT
Hi Peter,
I looked on the AudioSector thread recently and saw the photo you posted of the DAC. Looks very nice!
I noticed that you use the Caddock TF020's as I/V resistors. How long did you have to burn them in before they fully came alive?
I ask because I replaced the stock generic metal film I/V resistors in my Monica II dac recently with Caddock TF020 (as well as TF020 for ref. voltage resistor; I also used Caddock MK132 as constant current source resistor).
It didn't sound too good at first - bright and hashy on top and lacking in bass quantity, tightness, and impact. Music sounded stiff and artificial. Also somewhat disorganized and not much air or separation around insturments. The thing that bothered me most was the shift in tonal balance - all the sudden the spotlight went to the upper-mids and treble and the bass was a lot quieter and lacking in oomph or impact. It didn't make for a very engaging sound - not much better than a cheap boombox, really.
I hooked it up a few days ago to the digital output of my Roku Soundbridge (similar to Squeezebox) so I could send a continuous signal through it without burning up my transport motor. Well, it's starting to sound better - hashy treble has smoothed out and the rhythm and pacing has really picked up again. Thing are sounding much more organized and cohesive. Bass is just starting to show signs of returning but is not back to a proper balance with the treble yet. Also, the sense of air and space is returning but not quite back to pre-mod levels.
If these things return, I will be happy. It seems the Caddock TF020 has contributed a level of focus, intensity, and drive to the sound that would be a good thing if these other aspects return. Most important right now is the tonal balance. That light, soft, quiet, indistinct bass is really bothersome.
How long did observe the burn-in period for these resistors was, Peter? Also, did you notice a big difference flipping the orientation of the TF020's? If so, which side did you use as the input side?
Depending on how things work out, I may replace the constant current source resistor (Caddock MK132) with either a Shinkoh tantalum or Riken to see if that evens out the tonal balance.
Thanks a lot,
KT
I find Caddocks TF020 appealing only when used with teflon V-Caps. With BG N they are not that good and I probably couldn't use them in a long run in such combination.
OTOH, Rikens with V-Caps don't work well either, I find the sound somewhat diffused, with too much midbass softness and lack of focus. That's why I switched to Caddocks when using those coupling caps.
Caddocks with BG N sounded metallic, bright and not much involving.
I'm not sure if breaking in will improve things that much. Regarding orientation, I didn't check it for those resistors. I briefly checked orientation for nude Vishays I'm using in passive volume control; there may be a difference, but I'm not sure how much it is matter of subjectivity. Anyway, it seemed better when facing the print, the signal direction was from left to right.
If there is something worth trying with orientation, it could be power line polarity: http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1177
OTOH, Rikens with V-Caps don't work well either, I find the sound somewhat diffused, with too much midbass softness and lack of focus. That's why I switched to Caddocks when using those coupling caps.
Caddocks with BG N sounded metallic, bright and not much involving.
I'm not sure if breaking in will improve things that much. Regarding orientation, I didn't check it for those resistors. I briefly checked orientation for nude Vishays I'm using in passive volume control; there may be a difference, but I'm not sure how much it is matter of subjectivity. Anyway, it seemed better when facing the print, the signal direction was from left to right.
If there is something worth trying with orientation, it could be power line polarity: http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1177
Thanks for the insight, Peter. I'll burn it in for another week or so and if it doesn't settle in by then I'll change out the Caddock TF020. It frequency response does seem tilted up to the upper-midrange/treble, but it does seem to have impoved in the last day or so, so we'll see...
Now that you mention it, I do recall a post you wrote a while ago saying that the Caddock TF020 were good with the V-Caps and that Riken were better with the BG-N. Are you still of this mind about the Riken and BG-N?
Also, I can get Shinkoh tantalum in the right value. Have you experimented with the Shinkoh in I/V position with BG-N?
Thanks,
KT
Now that you mention it, I do recall a post you wrote a while ago saying that the Caddock TF020 were good with the V-Caps and that Riken were better with the BG-N. Are you still of this mind about the Riken and BG-N?
Also, I can get Shinkoh tantalum in the right value. Have you experimented with the Shinkoh in I/V position with BG-N?
Thanks,
KT
KT said:
I just wrote it two posts up:
Peter Daniel said:
I never had a chance to try Shinkoh, I only tried tantalums from PCX, and to be honest, I didn't like them much: very laid back, emphasizing midrange mostly, the bass seemed good though.
Peter Daniel said:
Peter,
Yes, thanks for this link. Stereophile actually published an article about it in the late '90's. It outlined a way of improving the performance of a system by making sure the PS polarity on each component matched each other:
http://www.stereophile.com//finetunes/192/
http://www.stereophile.com/finetunes/195/index.html
The device they recommended for testing component polarity was called the Elfix polarity tester and was sold by AudioAdvisor and others. You can find them online if you Google it.
I bought something like this and tried playing with the polarity of my plugs.
In my system and residence at that time, I did notice some subtle differences but it was nothing major. I did hear about some other folks who had much more dramatic results, however.
It may be worth experimenting with again.
Thanks for the insight into the I/V resistors. The values that I'll need for the Monica II aren't available in Shinkoh, so I'll be using Riken in case the Caddock TF020 don't work out. I am using BG-N at the outputs, btw.
Thanks,
KT
KT said:
The link I posted, goes actually deeper into polarity than Stereophile ever mentioned. It suggests that only one phase of 2 x 120V delivered to the house is actually good for audio. If the one you are using is not the right one, you will get "crappy sound".
I didn't test it yet though.
Peter,
Oh, I didn't read carefully through the post - just glanced through it quickly.
I'll take a closer read, though. Sounds intriguing.
If your house is wired with the wrong phase, how hard would it be to hook it up to the other phase? Maybe I should read through it at this point...
Best,
KT
Oh, I didn't read carefully through the post - just glanced through it quickly.
I'll take a closer read, though. Sounds intriguing.
If your house is wired with the wrong phase, how hard would it be to hook it up to the other phase? Maybe I should read through it at this point...
Best,
KT
I'm not sure how it is with most houses, but usually both phases are connected to the fuse box (as some appliances run off 240V), it's just the matter of choosing the right one for your stereo (according to the link).
So I've burned in the Caddock TF020 I/V and ref. voltage resistors a bit longer and it's very interesting - some aspects of the sound are better than I've ever heard out of the Monica II (or any of my other dacs: Scott Nixon DacKit & TubeDac+), but overall there's just something wrong.
First off, the stiffness and artificial sound quality when the Caddocks were new has worked itself out. The sound is now smooth and very, very dense. Some of the vocal tracks I listened to have a body and weight to them that bring them several steps closer to sounding "real" than I've heard before. Vocals are very rich, dense, creamy, and present.
But the overall sound is just a little too thick. While supple, there's a lack of air that makes everything sound heavy and grounded. It's like the atmosphere is too thick and heavy, like walking in dense fog, and you can hear the main body of sounds, but not the reverberation or spacial cues.
I addition, bass weight is there, but not the timing or impact. It's a very strange effect - the bass has the right amount of body and weight, but the leading edge of the bass beat is very, very soft and diffuse and the timing isn't well defined. This leads to the sense that beat-dependent music is very muted in energy, pace, and impact. For example, the Clash sounded like a nice, gentle version of the Clash, without the raw energy or rough edges. This, coupled with the lack of air, makes the music sound smooth and thick, but with a confused sense of timing and a very low-impact bass register. There isn't enough of a sure, tuneful foundation, or enough upper-frequency air to make for a compelling or coherent presentation. In some ways the sound seems heavy, slow, and restrained.
After everything burned in, I didn't notice the sense of brightness you were describing, Peter (maybe because of differences in circuit and components?). But I did notice the focus shifted up to highlight the upper midrange and lower treble. I attribute this mostly to a lack of air in the treble and a bass that seemed off timing-wise and impact-wise (bass was ample, but sounded amorphous, with little impact).
So I'm going to let it burn-in more until I get around to ordering some replacement Rikens for the I/V position.
Again, some of the sonic qualities are nicer than what I've heard previously, but overall it just doesn't come together.
I hope the Rikens in I/V will do the trick.
Best,
KT
First off, the stiffness and artificial sound quality when the Caddocks were new has worked itself out. The sound is now smooth and very, very dense. Some of the vocal tracks I listened to have a body and weight to them that bring them several steps closer to sounding "real" than I've heard before. Vocals are very rich, dense, creamy, and present.
But the overall sound is just a little too thick. While supple, there's a lack of air that makes everything sound heavy and grounded. It's like the atmosphere is too thick and heavy, like walking in dense fog, and you can hear the main body of sounds, but not the reverberation or spacial cues.
I addition, bass weight is there, but not the timing or impact. It's a very strange effect - the bass has the right amount of body and weight, but the leading edge of the bass beat is very, very soft and diffuse and the timing isn't well defined. This leads to the sense that beat-dependent music is very muted in energy, pace, and impact. For example, the Clash sounded like a nice, gentle version of the Clash, without the raw energy or rough edges. This, coupled with the lack of air, makes the music sound smooth and thick, but with a confused sense of timing and a very low-impact bass register. There isn't enough of a sure, tuneful foundation, or enough upper-frequency air to make for a compelling or coherent presentation. In some ways the sound seems heavy, slow, and restrained.
After everything burned in, I didn't notice the sense of brightness you were describing, Peter (maybe because of differences in circuit and components?). But I did notice the focus shifted up to highlight the upper midrange and lower treble. I attribute this mostly to a lack of air in the treble and a bass that seemed off timing-wise and impact-wise (bass was ample, but sounded amorphous, with little impact).
So I'm going to let it burn-in more until I get around to ordering some replacement Rikens for the I/V position.
Again, some of the sonic qualities are nicer than what I've heard previously, but overall it just doesn't come together.
I hope the Rikens in I/V will do the trick.
Best,
KT
- Status
- Not open for further replies.