+- Devialet Chat (https://devialetchat.com)
+-- Forum: Devialet Chat (https://devialetchat.com/Forum-Devialet-Chat)
+--- Forum: Your Systems (https://devialetchat.com/Forum-Your-Systems)
+--- Thread: Antoine's system (/Thread-Antoine-s-system)
RE: Antoine's system - Antoine - 22-Feb-2016
Did you guys test the Mutec in series with the Totaldac D1 server with re-clocking circuitry enabled? If so, impressive! I believe Jan had a prototype of the MC-3+ USB or maybe also it's predecessor the MC3+ (non-usb), not sure. I read a comment that someone believes the MC-3+USB is as good as cascading 3 MC-3+, but putting an MC-3+ behind MC-3+USB does improve things further. it's crazy (and of course subjective)! Mutec itself urges to put the new MC-3+ USB last in chain BTW. (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/mutec-mc-3-a-17300/index7.html#post510875)
RE: Antoine's system - f1eng - 22-Feb-2016
(22-Feb-2016, 15:26)Antoine Wrote:(21-Feb-2016, 18:01)Our Wrote: Hi Antoine,
Congratulations on your purchase. Hope you will enjoy it :-)
Thanks!
(21-Feb-2016, 19:06)f1eng Wrote: I checked out the Mutec web site after reading Jan's comments here, I bought one too after reading Karl-Heinz Fink's comments on their web site.
I have not used it much yet but I did not think t was a risky purchase given the quality of the engineering.
It does seem like a reversion to D-Premier in any ways! I used my Metric Halo recorder as a firewire to AES/EBU converter on that, and HDMI for TV and films.
I have never tried the USB input on my 800.
Nice, I read that comment too on the Mutec site.
Perhaps a future update will prove the added worth of the 200/250/400/800/900 platform over the old D-Premier platform. So far, today there is none for me personally, not anymore.
My feeling too. I wish I had saved my money and kept dual D-Premiers since my speakers will never be SAMed
RE: Antoine's system - GuillaumeB - 22-Feb-2016
(22-Feb-2016, 17:52)Antoine Wrote: Did you guys test the Mutec in series with the Totaldac D1 server with re-clocking circuitry enabled? If so, impressive! I believe Jan had a prototype of the MC-3+ USB or maybe also it's predecessor the MC3+ (non-usb), not sure. I read a comment that someone believes the MC-3+USB is as good as cascading 3 MC-3+, but putting an MC-3+ behind MC-3+USB does improve things further. it's crazy (and of course subjective)! Mutec itself urges to put the new MC-3+ USB last in chain BTW. (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/mutec-mc-3-a-17300/index7.html#post510875)
Yes it was the MC3+ and we connected it last in the chain after the totaldac reclocker.
There were definite improvements; Jan had us focussing on micro details (particularly around female vocals if I recall) and going backwards and forwards yes there were changes.
I may give the new Mutec another go at some point.
Guillaume
RE: Antoine's system - SwissBear - 22-Feb-2016
(22-Feb-2016, 17:52)Antoine Wrote: I read a comment that someone believes the MC-3+USB is as good as cascading 3 MC-3+, but putting an MC-3+ behind MC-3+USB does improve things further. it's crazy (and of course subjective)! Mutec itself urges to put the new MC-3+ USB last in chain BTW. (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/mutec-mc-3-a-17300/index7.html#post510875)If you read the German forum where all the enthusiasts of reclocking have been active recently, you will recall that the new MC-3+ USB has the reputation of having a much better clock than its predecessor. This is the reason why it is recommended to put it at the end of a cascade, if there is an MC-3+ involved.
Vincent Brient makes the analogy of stacking reclockers with putting multiple doors on the way of noise. If you have a double door, you are going to hear less noise on the other side.
Remains to see how the MC-3+ USB would behave in connection with a d1-reclocker. If the d1-reclocker has a better clock than the Mutec, it would make sense to plug the Mutec between the server part (optimized CuBox) and the reclocker. Otherwise, the option to put the Mutec at the end of the chain seems OK.
But be aware that plus does not always mean better ; another German company, Acousence, has released a competitor to the MC-3+ USB. And stacking this device with the MC-3+ USB does not improve but degrades things.
Need to listen and decide for oneself. Enjoy anyway :-)
RE: Antoine's system - Antoine - 22-Feb-2016
I read it on computeraudiophile.com (see the link I provided) however reading it again I see now that Julian from Mutec actually corrected that statement.
Regarding the D1, Guillaume just wrote above your post and last post on the previous page that the MC-3+ improves the D1's performance so I would guess the MC-3+ USB would improve it more. Did you miss his posts or do I misunderstand you?
Stacking multiple MC-3's BTW probably isn't something I am going to do. I simply don't have the space unless I buy a new TV/AV cabinet.
RE: Antoine's system - Confused - 22-Feb-2016
I guess you could run the TotalDac's Cubox output via Mutec direct to the Devialet, thus allowing a direct head to head comparison between the TotalDac re-clocker and the Mutec re-clocker. It would be interesting to see how the (somewhat cheaper) Mutec gets on. I am not expecting anyone to try this by the way, but I do think it would be an interesting test. (Guillaume's aversion to A/B testing noted)
Assuming the TotalDac would come out on top, this then leads to the prospect of using TotalDac re-clockers in series. This stuff could drive your crazy!
RE: Antoine's system - Hifi_swlon - 22-Feb-2016
What am I missing here - I've seen this 'cascaded' or 'in-series' purifiers/re-clockers scenario mentioned across various forums and with various devices.
So are we now saying USB signals need to be galvanically isolated, re-clocked, and regenerated, but not only that - put through this sequence multiple times (surely with each powered with a linear PS) and then either connected using expensive cables between each, or hard adapters (with the boxes strung out in a line across your living room) to stand any chance of getting the USB data from source to destination intact, or rather 'pure'?
I wasn't sceptical until I tried a Regen, but then again I did feel I got a much better sound from an Aurender. But now I'm not sure what to make if it all. It seems each time someone comes up with a way to 'perfect' a digital signal, along comes someone else to say it's still not quite right!
And wouldn't it be better if these devices simply iterated through their own mechanism a few times internally before spitting it out the other end if they can only do a % of what needed in one pass? Or that the final receiver was instead just sent an error corrected data set that it then does all this to internally? I guess I'm probably missing something again.
I get more and more confused with digital audio. In the rest of the world in telecoms etc digital is simple and has revolutionised how we worked previously with analogue. It's 1's and 0's and if the devices are up to spec they work, and if not they often don't. Huge cloud computing centres don't have to agonise about how perfect their 1's and 0's are, not in the way us audio folk have to. I know the USB audio transport is a different beast, but somehow just transferring digital data's become a huge deal; from jitter, to clocking, to subatomic reflections, vibration, power supply noise, cable skin effects - it's carnage for the poor little bits to get any sound data delivered anywhere without going all wobbly. What's gone wrong?
I genuinely really want to get a decent digital source and make improvements to my setup, but I seem to just get more and more confused about what the issue is. Is it just me?
RE: Antoine's system - Confused - 22-Feb-2016
(22-Feb-2016, 23:41)Hifi_swlon Wrote: I genuinely really want to get a decent digital source and make improvements to my setup, but I seem to just get more and more confused about what the issue is. Is it just me?
No.
RE: Antoine's system - SwissBear - 22-Feb-2016
(22-Feb-2016, 20:26)Antoine Wrote: I read it on computeraudiophile.com (see the link I provided) however reading it again I see now that Julian from Mutec actually corrected that statement.I had read Guillaume's posts. They were referring to MC-3+. And the enthusiasm of Guillaume was quite moderate.
Regarding the D1, Guillaume just wrote above your post and last post on the previous page that the MC-3+ improves the D1's performance so I would guess the MC-3+ USB would improve it more. Did you miss his posts or do I misunderstand you?
Stacking multiple MC-3's BTW probably isn't something I am going to do. I simply don't have the space unless I buy a new TV/AV cabinet.
I wanted to state that, in my opinion, and regarding the MC-3+ USB, it would be interesting to check in which position it would be the most appropriate to put it, relative to the d1-reclocker, depending on the relative performance of their clock.
I also wanted to point out that, if two reclocking operations were in general better than one (see the door metaphor), there were some cases where this was not working, and that it was important for each of us to form our own judgement.
I have strong convictions in this field, based on my own experience, but I feel it is important, given the scepticism of some readers, that they forge their own opinion :-)
RE: Antoine's system - Womaz - 23-Feb-2016
(22-Feb-2016, 23:52)Confused Wrote:(22-Feb-2016, 23:41)Hifi_swlon Wrote: I genuinely really want to get a decent digital source and make improvements to my setup, but I seem to just get more and more confused about what the issue is. Is it just me?
No.
I admire the lengths these guys go to ......but yes it all leaves me confused. I enjoy reading the posts but I won't ever get into this level of tweaking.