Assemblage 2.6/2.7 and Icarium rants

[dreamwhisper]

Why does the Assemblage dac I just bought say 2.7 on the front faceplate and 2.6 on the back ?

Which is it? 2.6 or 2.7 ?

I'll use this thread to post impressions later as well

...as soon as I can get a couple power cords from monoprice.

Edited April 6, 2010 by deepak

[n_maher]

Open it up, I'd guess the truth is in there and not on the panels. Otherwise, if it's a 2.6 I hope you didn't pay for a 2.7.

[dreamwhisper]

I see a PMD200 and PCM 1704,

I believe that it does mean it's capable of 24/96.

I'm thinking this also means that it's a 2.7 but I forget what the 2.6 has.

[grawk]

pretty sure that's the 2.7. If you ever sell it, contact filburt first, please.

[dreamwhisper]

pretty sure that's the 2.7.

I think you're right. Also found some good info on this site:

Jeff Chan's Audio Page -- Digital Audio

The 2.7 was the first to have PMD200, the 2.6, 2.5, 2, and 1.5 all had PMD100.

I didn't even know Assemblage had made that many different versions... strange that some of the older versions don't come up for sale more often.

If you ever sell it, contact filburt first, please.

Check, will not pull a NoNoNoNoNoNo.

[padam]

There is also a Platinum version of the 2.7 which is even better thanks to the K-grade DAC chips, I guess upgrading it manually is possible but not for the faint-hearted.

[falkon]

Congrats on the buy. They are extremely difficult to find. Yes, if you plan to resell, talk to Filburt.

[Filburt]

[dreamwhisper]

I take back what I said about NoNoNoNoNoNo.

I've recently been talking to him and he's told me more about his situation- he's a nice guy and the stigma surrounding him is pretty tricky.

He may not have gone out of his way for people in some ways that people in a community do (keeping gear within the community), but he has gone out of his way for people in other ways. (making DIY amps for people and selling at cost)

And although he's maybe made some mistakes, no one is perfect, and I feel like a douche for saying what I did.

if it's a 2.6 I hope you didn't pay for a 2.7.

I paid $500 shipped, so a little high if it was a 2.6 I guess.

Impressions to come in a day or two.

Turns out I don't need to buy a power cable for the Assemblage as I found my old Sonic Frontiers SFD2 mk2 power cable, although I think it might give one of the units an unfair advantage because the power cable that ships with a $6000 DAC has got to be pretty good quality.

[dreamwhisper]

Seriously, it says "60'C Water Resistant Outdoor" on it haha

I think the person who sold the SFD2 might have switched it with some kind of bbq or grill power cord. lame.

[grawk]

I take back what I said about sachu.

I've recently been talking to him and he's told me more about his situation- he's a nice guy and the stigma surrounding him is pretty tricky.

He may not have gone out of his way for people in some ways that people in a community do (keeping gear within the community), but he has gone out of his way for people in other ways. (making DIY amps for people and selling at cost)

And although he's maybe made some mistakes, no one is perfect, and I feel like a douche for saying what I did.

He's a sociopath, and can convince people to ignore what he does wrong. He's a douche.

[Pars]

From what I have heard regarding buying that 2.7 out from under filburt, that to me is unforgiveable.

he's a nice guy and the stigma surrounding him is pretty tricky.

Interesting way of putting it, but he defined his "stigma" by his own actions.

[dreamwhisper]

sure whatever.

we should create a userclass where the admin/mods have to approve a post before it can go through,

this could save a lot of hassle... I'll be the first to volunteer

[zertohero]

If it has a pmd200 then its a 2.7 as you only got the pmd200 on the 2.7 and 3.1.

If you have a pic of the internals we will be able to confirm this, and also what (if any) mods have been done.

I have a dac 2.7 and a dac 1.5

Was this the one bought through Canuckaudiomart recently?

Regarding NoNoNoNoNoNo:

Ive been silent until now because I have felt incredibly guilty but here's what really happened;

I was new on head-fi.org and had made friends with both Filburt and NoNoNoNoNoNo, mostly because they were both knowledgeable and very helpful on the assemblage dacs and I had a 2.7 I either wanted to sell or mod.

Both were looking for a 2.7 for themselves as they both had 2.6's and wanted to upgrade.

I decided to hold onto my 2.7 and mod it, but to help them both out I promised to keep a lookout online for any assemblage dacs that came up for sale.

When one came up on ebay I contacted both Filburt and NoNoNoNoNoNo with the link.

NoNoNoNoNoNo obviously snapped it up first.

I have felt incredibly guilty with the whole scenario as I was just trying to help out two fellow head-fi'ers and I ended up causing a major drama - this was never my intention.

I have had conversations with both guys and they are both awesome guys.

To both Filbert and NoNoNoNoNoNo; I'm sorry for the drama's I have caused and I hope you will both forgive me - I was only trying to help

Regards, Nathan

[n_maher]

NoNoNoNoNoNo's situation has as much to do with other things as it does his purchase and subsequent flipping of the 2.7. It's not like he was banned here or at Head-Fi for one specific reason or a particular action he took.

[Asr]

I take back what I said about NoNoNoNoNoNo.

I've recently been talking to him and he's told me more about his situation- he's a nice guy and the stigma surrounding him is pretty tricky.

He may not have gone out of his way for people in some ways that people in a community do (keeping gear within the community), but he has gone out of his way for people in other ways. (making DIY amps for people and selling at cost)

And although he's maybe made some mistakes, no one is perfect, and I feel like a douche for saying what I did.

dreamwhisper has been brainwashed by NoNoNoNoNoNo!

[falkon]

$500 is low for a 2.7

The cable doesn't matter.

edit: yeah i realized it when i wrote the post. hence the edit.

edit again: I love edits that make subsequent posts senseless.

edit again: Oh btw Stretch, I don't know from personal experience but I think you are right, horses are a much tighter fit.

[Hopstretch]

I think you'll find he was being self-deprecating.

[Aura]

we should create a userclass where the admin/mods have to approve a post before it can go through,

this could save a lot of hassle... I'll be the first to volunteer

sure whatever.

[dreamwhisper]

Was this the one bought through Canuckaudiomart recently?

yeah, it was advertised as an assemblage 2.6.

[zertohero]

Wow - good find!

How did you know it was a dac2.7?

Did you request a pic of the internals?

Would love to see the insides of that thing!

[boomana]

but he has gone out of his way for people in other ways. (making DIY amps for people and selling at cost)

As evidenced by what? What he says his costs are? Don't be naive.

[zertohero]

yeah, it was advertised as an assemblage 2.6.

Could you post a pic of the internals - i would love to compare it to mine....

Thanx

[dreamwhisper]

So I do agree with the Assemblage review that you can find on the net which also compares teh pmd100 to the pmd200.

It, or some other difference between the 2.7 and the Parasound 1100HD is a dramatic improvement.

Imaging and how the information imerges from a blacker background is noticed immediately. This gave even a Sennheiser HD280 a diffuse well-imaged soundstage.

I think that it could even flex the imaging of orthos out beyond the cups. I'm excited for that.

We'll see how it compares to the vinyl rig that I'm in the process of assembling.

A european dude will be sending me oldschool goa vinyl to rip/record for him so the rare records aren't lost forever, lol. Lots of random, albeit monotomous, vinyl coming my way in the future.

[Icarium]

Sigh, this is what worries me about you dreamwhisper ;p You seem a little bit selective with what information I give you that you retain. I told you awhile back in PM (Forget when, but certainly further back then Yesterday i.e. date of your post), but clearly there are more significant differences between the 2.7 and the 1100. Different dac chips for one. Different circuit implementation choices. Other different parts that matter more than the filter chip. Like there's still the possibility that maybe for you and your hearing personally the digital filter chip is the secret sauce, but its pretty unlikely since there are more key differences between the two from a technical standpoint.

Yes technical superiority doesn't always equate to better sound, but I don't think that exception to that is as common as some romantics might think so or want to believe. I could be wrong, but when I try to think about it without bias.. i think reality will demonstrate that not only in this area, but in most good engineering based on solid and complete scientific/EE principles will bear fruit. I honestly think so, but I also don't think it should be the one and only thing to design with. Obviously tune it by ear and other peoples' ears. If it doesn't sound good then maybe you fucked up something or your tech is incomplete and you are forgetting/missing something or maybe there's even a new principle that you now have an opportunity to try and discover and dont discount that.. give it a shot. Most of all, tech-based designers shouldn't bias their take on the sound with 1. how much they buy into the tech principles they used 2. how much effort they put into it.

So specs are mostly abused and meaningless so that's not a good metric for how technical solid something is. Figure out what what specs and tests do mean something and either do them yourself or find a expert to do it that you trust (Filburt/cetoole/luvdunhill/kevin gilmore/justin and more, sorry if I missed you!). Also people who think and advertise themselves as being really good engineers can sometimes be inconsistent and play fast and lose with what principles they chose to belief in and which they don't. That's silly and that doesn't make you a good engineer. That still places one somewhere solidly in the voodoo territory and its just as much a crapshoot whether or not the product will sound good.

So yes I want something that is technically sound and sounds good to me and I can place myself in a pretty decent vacuum state and honestly figure out if I feel something does good and not just ooh im a big geek and this is giving me a geek boner so I want it! And I am a big geek

Haha, sorry for the rant. I'm just tired of getting automatically shunted in certain groups or having my hearing taste completely discounted because I'm an "analytical/science" slanted guy and I place high value on it. That I like a soulless detailed sound. That I believe the same things as Dreadhead and other spec/graph fetishers (Sorry Dreadhead! I do like/respect you, and we do have overlap and I do agree if the tech was perfect that all sources should sound the same, but I think we have a long ways to go before the field can even come close to delivering on that ;p The science isn't there yet imo and by my ears and I think most really knowledgeable/experienced diyers/designer will agree and really in the end they are the experts.).

Anyways more specific to the parasound 1100hd/assemblage 2.7, besides the blurb i threw up at the start of this post. Mostly I do trust Filburt's hearing a lot because I consider him an expert in that area. I have very, very little overlap with him in music and we do have differences in the sound we overall like (He will sacrifice some clarity/detail and soundstaging a bit for fullness in bass/mids and fullness in general), but I know where our differences are and I think his hearing is genuinely good and he can give me unbiased observations about what he hears rather then what he wants to hear and I can form my own takeaways based on his observations. Sure because he can hear things (And I believe he can) between different grades of chips and digital filters and capacitor swaps.... and I know I can't I don't need to embrace those just because those things make a difference to him.

Anyways basically I try not to be blind/overzealous in accepting everything he says as truth to me ;p Though some people may think otherwise

So haha again back to the digital filters. Two things, they may not apply to you or other people, but I'm a cynical/skeptical guy by nature and so I have tested these thoughts a bit:

1. Filburt says that digital filter swaps are as subtle as capacitor swaps (Specific to when you already have a solid performing capacitor in there already that does a good enough job in the circuit position its in and you go with something with better performance specs like teflon or polystyrene). After testing I know he can hear the difference but I can't really but either way I don't think he'd even disagree that its too subtle for MOST people without the short of training he's had. I'd go into exactly what sort of training he's had/done but he values his privacy so I'll respect that. Anyway, he's my expert in this area and unfortunately there aren't a lot of those or I'd consult them too. If you find your own or train yourself to be one that's cool, but unless you are a gear genius (Since you've heard a lot less stuff then me in the way of dacs) or Filburt level hearing then I don't think you are there yet ;p Though I see no reason as to why you can't obtain that if you are willing to spend the money and invest the time (I'm only willing to spend the money and my hearing simply isnt good enough to warrant even trying).

2. I've heard the assemblage dac3 and dac3.1 back and forth with Filburt side by side. These dacs are basically identical except for digital filter and the dac3.1 has a dual pll i.e. supposedly better jitter rejection. Sure that parasound 1100 HD is schematically very similar and that's part of why some of us like them and also because of that, both sound very good, but they are still very different and that's why they sound very different. Dac3 and 3.1 are almost infinitely more similar then a 1100 even if the 1100 is infinitely more similar to a dac 3.1/2.7 when compared to.. say a wavelength cosine dac. Though yeah sometimes two very disparate technologies can sometimes sound surprising similar. Well that's because the science is still incomplete imo ;p but I am confident that there are good scientific reasons why waiting to be discovered as long as people continue trying. Sadly not enough of our best and brightest are going into audio engineering so i dunno when that's gonna happen really if ever.

Anyway how this is related to that is testing the two we had a good opportunity to really see what differences dual pll and digital filter differences make. Theoretically the dual pll should only perform better and result in less jitter so the conclusions we could draw are:

a. If the 3.1 sounds better then digital filter + dual pll = better. No real good way to figure out what part of that is digital filter and what part of that is the dual pll really except that since Filburt has more experience with testing those things he can possibly identify which traits are similar to those he's seen from better jitter rejection or better digital filters in the past.. i.e. those two things most likely do not improve sound in the same way.

b. If the 3.1 sounds worse then digital filter + dual pll (In this specific implementation) = worse. And since we know that dual pll should really just be better then its highly possible that the pmd200 actually is the culprit in the worse sound... that or the dual pll was executed crappily or used wrong.. e.g. the dual pll is great but they stuck a shitty op amp in front of it or aren't utilizing it correctly. This happens a lot so dont just jump over things that have dual pll or other neat technologies in it ;p

Anyway personally I couldn't hear a difference. Which is great to me because I have a 3.1 (Basically like a 2.7) and since I'm essentially redbook I can get another dac3 or 3.1 and I don't have to necssarily hold out for a 3.1. Woohoo!

Now Filburt could and he could verbalize why.. I think it was one sounds a teensy bit clearer and it was the DAC3. So reference outcome b listed above.

Anyway, neither Filburt nor I are perfect nor is everyone like us so yes very much take our experiences/conclusions with a BIG grain of salt, but do factor it in I think when think about this stuff

So yeah, sorry for the lots of text and tangents. I definitely have issues with ADD/editing ;p And I don't think you necessarily stupid dreamwhisper since shrug I told you about this shit possibly a long time ago and not everyone's recall is like mine. Also I doubt I went into as much detail in the chat PM.. so maybe you understand where I'm coming from a little bit better and here's something you can always reference if you do forget

To the rest of you.. if you see inconsistencies with my approach and conclusions and philosophies (If you actually made the effort to read this probably hard to read stream of conscious post) then come at me with your counter arguments and contrary evidence. I always am looking to refine my model I could be wrong! And frankly I'm not the type to dwell on that because having a better model is more important to me then being right/wrong or my pride ;p

Edited April 3, 2010 by Icarium