|
|
Post by krisno on Mar 23, 2009 19:18:34 GMT
Hi guys
Long time no speak...
This sharpness and brightness regarding my V2 which I never solved.. the stock v3 did not sound this bright. But tell me anyone..
modded V2 and modded V3, do they sound the same??
Mike, are you planning on a mod kit for V8 also? Musical Fidelity is allready selling a upgrade for the V8. Maybe you could 'copy' it?
Btw.. can you ship me 2x of those ferrite bead links and 2x of those resistor gain modification? I will paypal you money for it. How much you need? £5 ?
Kris
|
|
|
|
Post by krisno on Mar 24, 2009 9:07:54 GMT
The V2 really kills my ears  But tell me, V2 vs V3, when modded, was there big difference? K |
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Mar 24, 2009 23:33:42 GMT
The V2 really kills my ears And I thought the V2 is smoother than the V3 from forum comments everywhere? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by krisno on Mar 25, 2009 18:48:15 GMT
XTRProf you did? It is not smooth, it's sharp, even with new set of tubes. I am gonna try with a new discrete headphone amp soon. If that thing is smooth(using same dac), I will know that its something with the V2. I really am shocked by the V2.
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Mar 26, 2009 0:13:46 GMT
I am currently listening to my V2 and it is very mellow and smooth. Nothing like you describe yours and I have listened to a few V2's. That is more like it ................. ;D |
|
toad
Been here a while! 
I am the Super Toad, the Original Toad, the Whole Toad and nothing BUT the toad.... don't forget it!
Posts: 1,223
|
Post by toad on Mar 26, 2009 15:15:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by krisno on Mar 26, 2009 22:21:42 GMT
XTRprof mellow and smooth?
What cans? what source? what tubes are you using??
|
|
|
|
Post by dejanm on Mar 27, 2009 9:15:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by PinkFloyd on Mar 27, 2009 9:33:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by krisno on Mar 28, 2009 13:18:05 GMT
I am ordering som Mundorf supreme £20 each caps to replace the output caps on the dac(which is some tantalum).... They are supposed to be very smooth. If problems continues then it is the V2.
I will also try with this Burson 100% discrete amp also... that will probably show the truth of this ...
I really can't understand that I have been the 1 unlucky person getting a harsh and bright V2 and noone else. So eithers its bright and you guys are deaf, or it is the source (but I tried a few sources allready hehe....
|
|
|
|
Post by stevieg330 on Apr 16, 2009 9:31:41 GMT
Hi All,
I have an X-Can v2 and it now has most of the mods that Mike has come up with, FM caps, fast diodes, no input caps etc. It also has the Reflector 6H23P-EB Tubes in it.
I only have my Michell Gyrodec plugged into the xcan. The deck has an Ortofon Kontrapunkt b cartridge feeding into a Trichord Dino phono amp. This is connected by a Nordost Red Dawn interconnect into the headphone amp. The headphones I use are Sennheiser HD600's.
On my particular X-can, I do think it lends itself to the bright side of things and for the most part I certainly wouldn't call it a mellow amp. However it is is so dependant on what is actually being fed into it.
Records, even more so than cd's , can vary enormously in terms of their sound quality. My set up can sound absolutely wonderful with a fine recording and really horrible with a poor one, to the point where I won't bother listening to it. Most of these poor records sound thin and bright through the X-can.
I don't think there is a fault with it however, I believe that the mods have increased its resolution to the point where it is giving a 'warts and all' presentation.
The adage 'c**p in - c**p out' seems totally relevant here.
So I think that the original poster may well have heard a bright presentation from the amp but I would still queston how good the signal coming into it actually is. In my experience a bright source will give a bright and possibly thin sound out of the Xcan. On the other hand feed it a well balanced, detailed signal (in my case from a well recorded lp) and the sound can be wonderful.
My thoughts on the subject anyway, although its probably a bit late as the OP appears to have sold the Xcan.
Cheers
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by krisno on Apr 16, 2009 12:42:24 GMT
Hi
The V2 is bright, these guys must be deaf... It was bright before the mod , the mod just brings you closer to the music. I didn't use a bright source btw, I used a NOS dac. AKG and V2 atleast is a bright combo... and as you said, the source nails it. When I played som dark jazz on it, it was not bad, but if you add on some bright music, it shreels..
Maybe it's the russian tubes also, but if you google X-can v2 + bright, you will see alot of complaints.
The best was the V8 + AKG, using the built in dac, really mellow combo! Best.... BUT it lacked details.... V3 has been the best overall, the stock, that I have tried.
Yesterday I listened to a Meridian 8200 DSP speaker in full surround. The Meridian speakers has a built in seperate amplifier for EACH speaker element, also a built in dac. They cost around £30 000.... well, how was it? the best digital I have heard in my life. Really amazing... it was so neutral and so extremly realistic..
But a good tubes setup sounds for 'fun' maybe... I am not sure. I am still waiting for the dark shanling p100 amp, will see how that works.
Kris
|
|
|
|
Post by stevieg330 on Apr 16, 2009 13:25:08 GMT
Hi,
I really think that you should have taken up Mike's offer and sent your V2 to him to see if anything was wrong with it.
I said it can lean towards a bright sound but, in my case anyway, it only became unlistenable when using a poor source. Stick a well recorded and well produced piece of music and it can sound lovely without a hint of harshness. This is across different styles and genre of music.
I don't know what a NOS Dac is but I have run a digital out from the PC to a DAC and I have to admit, putting mp3 or other compressed music though the Xcan doesn't sound particulary good to my ears. But there again I have never heard compressed audio sound good anyway. Wav's or Flac files sound noticably better though.
I have yet to hear audio played from a computer match a good quality cd player, let alone one of the newer generation formats.
I have also found that the encoding process also can also influence the sound pretty dramatically eg. AAC encoding is noticably harsher than MP3 at the same bitrate, to me at least.
I think that perhaps you should have tried the Xcan with a different front end (something other than a computer) as there are lots of variables in trying to track down the problem.
As I said though in my previous email it's all a bit academic as you have got rid of it.!
Cheers
Steve
|
|
robertkd
Been here a while!
Electronics Engineer from sunny Queensland
Posts: 111
|
Post by robertkd on Apr 16, 2009 13:33:00 GMT
Hi, I really think that you should have taken up Mike's offer and sent your V2 to him to see if anything was wrong with it. I said it can lean towards a bright sound but, in my case anyway, it only became unlistenable when using a poor source. Stick a well recorded and well produced piece of music and it can sound lovely without a hint of harshness. This is across different styles and genre of music. I don't know what a NOS Dac is but I have run a digital out from the PC to a DAC and I have to admit, putting mp3 or other compressed music though the Xcan doesn't sound particulary good to my ears. But there again I have never heard compressed audio sound good anyway. Wav's or Flac files sound noticably better though. I have yet to hear audio played from a computer match a good quality cd player, let alone one of the newer generation formats. I have also found that the encoding process also can also influence the sound pretty dramatically eg. AAC encoding is noticably harsher than MP3 at the same bitrate, to me at least. I think that perhaps you should have tried the Xcan with a different front end (something other than a computer) as there are lots of variables in trying to track down the problem. As I said though in my previous email it's all a bit academic as you have got rid of it.! Cheers Steve Steve for some reason the term NOS DAC has been attributed to DAC's that do not over sample (sample rate up-convert) that is Non Over Sampling or NOS As for computer audio well all my music on computer is in WAV format and seriously can not tell the difference between computer source and CDP source, perhaps some people can perhaps some people think they can, I can not ;D Robert |
|
|
|
Post by krisno on Apr 16, 2009 13:36:01 GMT
There is big difference on computer and CDP. Reason is jitter... try with a pacecar and you get esoteric quality from PC....
But I tried with many sources...
It's bright...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevieg330 on Apr 16, 2009 14:28:45 GMT
Hi,
Robert thanks for the clarification. I've learnt something!
I guess the theory goes that if you have lossless files then they should be as good as the source they came from so assuming comparable hardware you shouldn't hear any difference.
In my experience I haven't found that but perhaps the hardware I listened to isn't as good as the cdp.
Certainly getting into the realms of compression it doesn't take long for the quality to noticably drop off.
Not really sure about the jitter comment, jitter can appear in computer based hardware just as it can in a standalone player.
Cheers
Steve
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2009 21:34:29 GMT
Hi, I really think that you should have taken up Mike's offer and sent your V2 to him to see if anything was wrong with it. I said it can lean towards a bright sound but, in my case anyway, it only became unlistenable when using a poor source. Stick a well recorded and well produced piece of music and it can sound lovely without a hint of harshness. This is across different styles and genre of music. I don't know what a NOS Dac is but I have run a digital out from the PC to a DAC and I have to admit, putting mp3 or other compressed music though the Xcan doesn't sound particulary good to my ears. But there again I have never heard compressed audio sound good anyway. Wav's or Flac files sound noticably better though. I have yet to hear audio played from a computer match a good quality cd player, let alone one of the newer generation formats. I have also found that the encoding process also can also influence the sound pretty dramatically eg. AAC encoding is noticably harsher than MP3 at the same bitrate, to me at least. I think that perhaps you should have tried the Xcan with a different front end (something other than a computer) as there are lots of variables in trying to track down the problem. As I said though in my previous email it's all a bit academic as you have got rid of it.! Cheers Steve Steve for some reason the term NOS DAC has been attributed to DAC's that do not over sample (sample rate up-convert) that is Non Over Sampling or NOS As for computer audio well all my music on computer is in WAV format and seriously can not tell the difference between computer source and CDP source, perhaps some people can perhaps some people think they can, I can not ;D Robert Robert Either you have "cloth" ears or your equipment chain is letting you down. I wouldn't have believed it until about 18 months ago when I really needed to do more listening via the PC using .wav files ripped to the HDD using EAC, because of too much background noise from the family. (a major bus depot is down the end of my street too) You do however need a good quality soundcard, perhaps with the typical front channel I.C. replaced by something better such as a SM OPA2134 or LM4562 for analogue output use, or via SPDIF into a very good DAC, then a high resolution HA. You also need wide bandwidth to retain maximum harmonic structure. You are the EE, but I still think that the 1n2 in the FB area of your HA is holding you back.Have you evere tried dramatically reducing that value ? If my 70 year old damaged ears can readily hear the differences with PC audio, then you should be able to shit it in. If you don't want to believe me that PC audio can be markedly superior to that heard directly from your DVD drive, or CD/DVD player, ask our software expert friend from Melbourne. Alex |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2009 21:45:15 GMT
stevieg330
That theory is flawed . There is a difference between the so called "lossless" files and the original .wav, just as there is a difference between files ripped from different technology PC writers using EAC for extraction to .wav. You just need high enough resolution source material and electronics, as well as an open mind, to hear it. This is despite what various types of checksums may say. A couple of RG members have heard these so called identical sounding files via my PC,and in one case from my speaker set up, but using his own new amplifier. Another Queensland member can also verify this from his own experience. Currently, I have a comparison CD that I made, on it's way to a senior DIYAudio moderator in Belgium , for him to see if he can also verify the differences, and if he can not, to pass the disc around to members with better systems.
SandyK
|
|
|
|
Post by clausdk on Apr 16, 2009 21:47:59 GMT
A little OT, but I have have often wondered how much the soundcard mattered when using digital out from a PC ??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2009 22:02:06 GMT
A little OT, but I have have often wondered how much the soundcard mattered when using digital out from a PC ?? clausdk I would guess that it comes down to the onboard filtering of the soundcard, and how well the SPDIF interface was implemented on the card. SandyK |
|
robertkd
Been here a while!
Electronics Engineer from sunny Queensland
Posts: 111
|
Post by robertkd on Apr 17, 2009 2:04:46 GMT
[ Robert Either you have "cloth" ears or your equipment chain is letting you down. I wouldn't have believed it until about 18 months ago when I really needed to do more listening via the PC using .wav files ripped to the HDD using EAC, because of too much background noise from the family. (a major bus depot is down the end of my street too) You do however need a good quality soundcard, perhaps with the typical front channel I.C. replaced by something better such as a SM OPA2134 or LM4562 for analogue output use, or via SPDIF into a very good DAC, then a high resolution HA. You also need wide bandwidth to retain maximum harmonic structure. You are the EE, but I still think that the 1n2 in the FB area of your HA is holding you back.Have you evere tried dramatically reducing that value ? If my 70 year old damaged ears can readily hear the differences with PC audio, then you should be able to shit it in. If you don't want to believe me that PC audio can be markedly superior to that heard directly from your DVD drive, or CD/DVD player, ask our software expert friend from Melbourne. Alex ouch, in both instances I was referring to optical out of the computer and optical out of the the CDP playing the same material, I have also used the SRC24/96 to reclock and SPDIF into the DAC's again no obvious differences. If you are referring to analogue out of the computer vs analogue out of the CDP well the Onkyo CDP is still prety good (not like some of those cheap CDP's) but alas the DAC's (TDA1543*8 and PCM1973) beat both the computer and CDP analogue by a country mile  I think for detail the PCM 1973 is better then the TDA1543*8 but I haven't had a chance to do anything with it yet  Robert |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2009 2:22:21 GMT
Robert
I get far better results from the HDD .wav files,X-FI SPDIF into my X-DAC V3 then SC HA (or whatever), than Pioneer SACD/DVD-A player,or modified Oppo DV981HD SPDIF into the same X-DAC V3 and Class A preamp and Class A amp. (or SC HA)
I normally use Creative Media Source Player for PC playback, as it is way ahead of Windows player, or Power DVD or WIN DVD. Foobar seems pretty good too. Even playing the same CD with the PC's own DVD writers, (and that includes the BluRay writer) the sound is way behind the sheer quality of playback via the HDD, and that is when still using the X-DAC V3 and playing with Creative Media Source Player. There is simply no contest.
Alex
P.S.
I now have a 9-0-9 toroidal and will eventually get around to the other delayed project.
P.P.S.
My apologies for drifting "off topic"
|
|
|
|
Post by krisno on Apr 17, 2009 10:40:39 GMT
You are very right Robert. The PCM 1973 is much more detailed, and more spacoius. More air, better seperation.
But the 8x1543 is about something else. It is so extremly realistic. It is as being there. There are no filters involved at all. You really hear the 'colors' of the music as I have never experienced it.
But on my AKG, this was only experienced when using the TDA1543 through a dark amp. Via the burson or v2 i couldn't hear it. The dark Shanling ph100 is supposed to be delivered today. Will see how that works compared to the darker 2134 opa sibling.
try the 1543x8, it's extremly realistic. It really is the madman!!!!!!!
K
|
|
