XXII Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I don't think it's extra foil, I think the label peeled off, and the foil is underneath. It's not. The label is still underneath the foil. That foil on one dac chip cover is really bizarre though. It is really bizarre and I would have questioned the seller about it if I saw it. The labels on the other DAC and the filter are also really scratched up which is surely not normal wear and tear. The seller did mention that he used to do some tweak involving wooden blocks on top of the DAC chip, maybe the foil is another one of his tweaks. I guess this would be the "innocent" explanation. Well I'm glad it works and sounds great but I'd definitely think twice about taking this path again after this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fungi Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 You might want to put a tinfoil hat atop your DAC to prevent aliens from taking over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeggy Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 damn aliens... Anyway, glad it's working and sounding good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feckn_eejit Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 NECROPOST! Wow, this is one of the very early SFD-2s. The SFD-II Mk.III I'm listening to right now was an original Mk.I SFD-2 as well. My case is rather different - rather than just the top coming off it's a top and side type arrangement. Mine says 1994 on the analog board near the output jacks. Apparently the analog board changed a bit over the Mk.I run. If you bought a brand new Mk.II, you have the latest analog board. Some Mk.Is have the same but only the later ones. I'm not sure that the Mk.II upgrade changed much other than the digital filter swapout to PMD100... The Mk.III was available as an upgrade only as far as I am aware. The Mk.III added SF's funky I^2-Se input (output mod available for SFT-1 and standard on Transport 3, and Assemblage D2D-1 upsampler). Mk.III uses CS8414 receiver for all but I^2-Se, PMD200, PCM1704s (eight of 'em!) and OPA627s for I/V... The Mk.III is fucking great... and insane with the D2D-2 via I^2-Se... (changing my redbook life, i'm in heaven! you know that face Fremer's pulling in the gizmodo article listening to Avalon? that's me right now but with Stax on, and for only 5 cents on his $350k dollar and instead of a big black vynil disc it's the fabulous redbook layer of the SACD version of this album) my only complaint is the bass (both quantity and quality) falls short compred to my Pass D1 (24/96 upgraded unit with CS8414/DF1704/8xPCM1704). Chris Johnson tells me the SE+ upgrade should more than address that and I'm going to have Bursons put in place of the OPA627s as well... just waiting for funds to materialize... As for digital cables, I have a SFT-1 (sans I^2-Se output...) with ST-optical output and have used it extensively with my Pass D1, and a bit with the SFD-2 Mk.III (rocking a Micromega Drive 3 mostly these days). It's definitely got its own sound, different than coax or xlr... I've only got one ST cable, a grey plain looking AT&T jobbie. Aural Symphonics would be happy to sell you a $1k "Optimism V2"... anyway, I find ST and XLR to be opposite sounds with coax a happy medium. XLR = smooth, laid back, good in the extremes, kind of fat and slow PRaT wise. ST = awesome midrange, wicked PRaT, weak in the extremes. coax = great balance of the two. This has held true with all the cables and transports I've used... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pars Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 <snip> The Mk.III is fucking great... and insane with the D2D-2 via I^2-Se... (changing my redbook life, i'm in heaven! you know that face Fremer's pulling in the gizmodo article listening to Avalon? that's me right now but with Stax on, and for only 5 cents on his $350k dollar and instead of a big black vynil disc it's the fabulous redbook layer of the SACD version of this album) my only complaint is the bass (both quantity and quality) falls short compred to my Pass D1 (24/96 upgraded unit with CS8414/DF1704/8xPCM1704). Chris Johnson tells me the SE+ upgrade should more than address that and I'm going to have Bursons put in place of the OPA627s as well... just waiting for funds to materialize... <snip> I'm guessing most of the diff you are hearing between the D1 and this is due to the output stage. I wouldn't personally bother with opamps (other than maybe an OPA861 transconductance stage), but would go for a discrete stage. Zapfilter would be the easiest, though probably not the best. If you do decide to go the Burson route, I would probably do one of the Audio Gd ones, as I suspect that they actually make the Bursons, and theirs are more reasonably priced. Note that for I/V duty, a discrete opamp << a discrete zero feedback I/V stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xand1x Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 NECROPOST! Wow, this is one of the very early SFD-2s. The SFD-II Mk.III I'm listening to right now was an original Mk.I SFD-2 as well. My case is rather different - rather than just the top coming off it's a top and side type arrangement. Mine says 1994 on the analog board near the output jacks. Apparently the analog board changed a bit over the Mk.I run. If you bought a brand new Mk.II, you have the latest analog board. Some Mk.Is have the same but only the later ones. I'm not sure that the Mk.II upgrade changed much other than the digital filter swapout to PMD100... The Mk.III was available as an upgrade only as far as I am aware. The Mk.III added SF's funky I^2-Se input (output mod available for SFT-1 and standard on Transport 3, and Assemblage D2D-1 upsampler). Mk.III uses CS8414 receiver for all but I^2-Se, PMD200, PCM1704s (eight of 'em!) and OPA627s for I/V... The Mk.III is fucking great... and insane with the D2D-2 via I^2-Se... (changing my redbook life, i'm in heaven! you know that face Fremer's pulling in the gizmodo article listening to Avalon? that's me right now but with Stax on, and for only 5 cents on his $350k dollar and instead of a big black vynil disc it's the fabulous redbook layer of the SACD version of this album) my only complaint is the bass (both quantity and quality) falls short compred to my Pass D1 (24/96 upgraded unit with CS8414/DF1704/8xPCM1704). Chris Johnson tells me the SE+ upgrade should more than address that and I'm going to have Bursons put in place of the OPA627s as well... just waiting for funds to materialize... As for digital cables, I have a SFT-1 (sans I^2-Se output...) with ST-optical output and have used it extensively with my Pass D1, and a bit with the SFD-2 Mk.III (rocking a Micromega Drive 3 mostly these days). It's definitely got its own sound, different than coax or xlr... I've only got one ST cable, a grey plain looking AT&T jobbie. Aural Symphonics would be happy to sell you a $1k "Optimism V2"... anyway, I find ST and XLR to be opposite sounds with coax a happy medium. XLR = smooth, laid back, good in the extremes, kind of fat and slow PRaT wise. ST = awesome midrange, wicked PRaT, weak in the extremes. coax = great balance of the two. This has held true with all the cables and transports I've used... Hey good to see you here my friend! Glad that SFD-2 MK.III is kicking ass as usual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feckn_eejit Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 I'm guessing most of the diff you are hearing between the D1 and this is due to the output stage. I wouldn't personally bother with opamps (other than maybe an OPA861 transconductance stage), but would go for a discrete stage. Zapfilter would be the easiest, though probably not the best. If you do decide to go the Burson route, I would probably do one of the Audio Gd ones, as I suspect that they actually make the Bursons, and theirs are more reasonably priced. Note that for I/V duty, a discrete opamp << a discrete zero feedback I/V stage.Output stage and digital filter (DF1704 in the D1, PMD200 in the SF) are the two big differences. I'm torn about the op amp in the SFD-2 thing. I really like the sound of this DAC (save for the weak bass which I'm told will improve with bigger output caps as part of the SE+ upgrade), yet I know I should hate that it uses friggin op amps for I/V... I'm really not much of an electronics buff and am just learning about this stuff, and am not inclined to tinker around with my own multi kilobuck DAC... so I'm sort of limited to what I can get others to do for me and PartsConnexion sells the Bursons, so... I'm not inclined to have the whole I/V stage re-engineered so I guess I am interested in whatever is the best drop in replacement for the OPA627s... I guess what would be really sweet would be to build a Pass D1 I/V and output and somehow merge it with the digital bits in the SF... then I wouldn't have to deal with the t00bs either! edit: or yank the PMD200 from the SF and learn how to or pay someone to engineer a new digital board for my D1!Hey good to see you here my friend! Glad that SFD-2 MK.III is kicking ass as usual Good to be here! Think I'm going to like this place... We'll have to do a bass-off some time.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atothex Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 You can just give me your SF DAC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feckn_eejit Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 You can just give me your SF DAC. and you can give me $3k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swt61 Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 neither sounds bad, in any way shape or form. we've had this discussion before, i think. Hmmm, I'm afraid I have to agree with Deepak on this one. I find the DAC1's top end to be too edgy. As far as the SF DAC, that seems a bit high for the age of the DAC. I agree there are better choices in that price range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atothex Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 and you can give me $3k Booooo... not even SE+? Nice tubes at least? Just playin. Welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feckn_eejit Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Booooo... not even SE+? will be soon(ish)!Nice tubes at least?Siemens CCa...Just playin. Welcome.Thanks, glad to have finally stumbled upon this place... sad it took me so long. Actually I don't feel like a total idiot on this one - I paid $3.1k (AgoN auction...) for a package consisting of the Mk.III, a D2D-1 upsampler, I^2S-e cable, and an original pre-Kimber Illuminati Orchid AES/EBU cable, which I guess I should get around to comparing to my later Kimber version... too bad I'm not a fan of AES/EBU cables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icarium Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 will be soon(ish)!Siemens CCa...Thanks, glad to have finally stumbled upon this place... sad it took me so long. Actually I don't feel like a total idiot on this one - I paid $3.1k (AgoN auction...) for a package consisting of the Mk.III, a D2D-1 upsampler, I^2S-e cable, and an original pre-Kimber Illuminati Orchid AES/EBU cable, which I guess I should get around to comparing to my later Kimber version... too bad I'm not a fan of AES/EBU cables. Hrm I think you overpaid. I don't know about the cabling, but I got my dsd-1/i2s cable thrown in free when I bought my Assemblage 3 and 3.1 for 1800 shipped. The cable is indeed a nice one. But I've definitely seeing MK IIIs move for several hundred cheaper... so I guess it's how much one values the kimber thingy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grawk Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Why wouldn't you be a fan of aes/ebu cables? They're much easier to build to maintain spec than SP/DIF coax cables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feckn_eejit Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Hrm I think you overpaid. I don't know about the cabling, but I got my dsd-1/i2s cable thrown in free when I bought my Assemblage 3 and 3.1 for 1800 shipped. The cable is indeed a nice one.really it's just a Sun workstation monitor cable... though I don't remember the old 13W3 cables having a ferrite bead on the load end so...But I've definitely seeing MK IIIs move for several hundred cheaper... so I guess it's how much one values the kimber thingy?Yeah, ~$2.5k seems right for a Mk.III alone, couple hundred more for the D2D-1, and a 1.5M orchid aes/ebu cable should be $350ish. You saying you paid $1.8k for a DAC3, DAC3.1, and D2D-1? Colour me green with envy...Why wouldn't you be a fan of aes/ebu cables? They're much easier to build to maintain spec than SP/DIF coax cables.I've always found AES/EBU to sound too laid back and syrupey smooth without as much impact in the lower registers, particularly compared to BNC-terminated coax which I understand is the ideal medium for S/PDIF. I'm told the XLR connector is not really ideal for high-bandwith transmission such as S/PDIF though I honestly don't understand why this is and would love to be enlightened... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltron Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 so in other words, you prefer the coax elves over the xlr nymphs. noted. Dude, nymphs are WAY hotter than elves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltron Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 I was just testing my hypothesis in exactly the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pars Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I've always found AES/EBU to sound too laid back and syrupey smooth without as much impact in the lower registers, particularly compared to BNC-terminated coax which I understand is the ideal medium for S/PDIF. I'm told the XLR connector is not really ideal for high-bandwith transmission such as S/PDIF though I honestly don't understand why this is and would love to be enlightened... AES/EBU is supposed to be 110 ohm (like SPDIF is supposed to be 75 ohms). An XLR connector is not. The majority of implementations of either are also not properly terminated at the char. impedance. And probably don't use coax or controlled impedance cabling/PCB traces either. It still works, but not optimally. One probable reason why digital cables sound different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvdunhill Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 AES/EBU is supposed to be 110 ohm (like SPDIF is supposed to be 75 ohms). An XLR connector is not. The majority of implementations of either are also not properly terminated at the char. impedance. And probably don't use coax or controlled impedance cabling/PCB traces either. It still works, but not optimally. One probable reason why digital cables sound different. The better AES/EBU solutions I've seen use transformers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pars Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I don't doubt that they all get all the data there. SPDIF is not just data however; there is an RF frequency clock riding on that data which is really more of an analog signal as it is not the levels that are of interest but the edges (timing). At 2.8MHz, reflections, etc. become an issue. Really poor interface design, and the whole reason for reclocking schemes, ASRCs, etc., which do jitter reduction and make the DAC less dependent upon the transport timing. And I should have said "One probable reason why I've heard digital cables sound different." since I don't use an external DAC and haven't personally gone thru myriads of digital cables as some I've read seem to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feckn_eejit Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Actually, I find unless the digital cable is truly shit, the flavour of sound is more dependant on what sort of connectors you're using rather than the brand/price of cable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tachikoma Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 Semi-necropost Found an interesting tidbit on a chinese DIY site about the UA20400A: 人間極品Ultra Analog 20400乃由兩顆配對之PCM63PK所組成 [url=http://www.cndiyclub.com/c_read.php?tid=13264] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pars Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 Why wouldn't that surprise me if true, knowing audiophool companies... I'll bet they went for quite a bit more than a pair of PCM63P-Ks did too (oh yeah, forgot the special matching and nymphs of the rainforest blessings, etc. etc. ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filburt Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 I can't read your original source, so I don't know what their argument is there. AFAIK the D20400 is a 12 bit monolithic dac coupled to a discrete ladder for the upper 8 bits. I'm pretty sure it says that right in the datasheet. Also note, the PCM63 only came in DIP package, and its package is rather large. I can't remember the exact dimensions of the D20400 package, but I'm not sure a 2 PCM63P setup would actually fit in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cclragnarok Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 That page says that it's just a rumor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.