All this gloom and doom about a low level 300k noise causing equipment damage makes me ask the question, how many ever heard of any electronics ever being damaged by the 50k subcode carrier used for the 4 channel discrete quadra disk system? Crikets! The level of that carrier was much higher and easily within the bandwith of many amplifiers.
1 Like
I donât see how one (JA) evaluates bass performance of a component on a speaker that has to be eqâd to give the illusion of low bass. And if his measurements have any meaning, then how does a flat measured response in the bass (I assume the MKII has) correlate with the lacking âdriveâ quality of the bass he noted vs. the Benchmark.
In the movie review biz, itâs well known that some reviewers pan a film others have liked, just to make themselves relevant and draw attention. In this case itâs more like Stereophile proving âsee we do print negative reviews.â
3 Likes
Yes, I still find the use of EQ and LS50s is not making it easy for most interested readers to get a sense of the MK2âs performance. @kzk brought up a review of Hegelâs phono preamp as a similarly out of whack review of a relatively budget component that was tested with a solid six figure system. I agree that matchup is insanely unrealistic, but I thought about it and thereâs a distinct reason why it doesnât bother me as much. If the subject of the review is the cheaper component, I feel like the tremendous transparency that the rest of Fremerâs system offers can only do a better job of isolating its attributes and revealing its true limitations. It might not give you any more of an accurate sense of what you might hear, but it would still function as a vastly more useful review.
Iâm sure a lot more people would be upset if a car review outfit tested a 911 GT3 with passenger all season tires on a dirt road versus a BMW M2 with racing slicks on a track. Testing with speakers that, in my opinion, are maxed out and matched with equipment way outside their envelope means that any differences between DACs are going to be compressed. Even if you wanted to go out of your way to point out the superiority of other DACs, youâd have a much easier time with equipment that actually resolves.
2 Likes
Agreed with everything, including the tire analogy. Reviewing a budget component on a much more expensive system is less problematic than the other way around. It still may be an issue for the reader who wants to know how the component fares in an appropriate level system.
Even the mention of an MBL level DAC on a JAâs speakers is a joke. About as helpful as a wine mag saying the âthe Chateau Rothschild didnât pare well with the $1.50 Costco hot dog.â
4 Likes
People like the hot dogs from Costco 
2 Likes
A couple of year ago years ago, Stereophile had another misstep on a review. Jason Victor Serinus ( JVS ) has a system that has Wilson Alexia speakers, a pair of DâAgostino monoblocks and a hi-end digital front end that has a volume control. So like JA he does not use a preamp. They gave him a $5K Yamaha integrated amp with a phono stage to review. Now JVS system would cost you or I over $100K to put together. JVS had to scrounge around to find interconnect cables to connect his digital front end to the integrate ampâs inputs. He has no TT or vinyl so he could not review the phono stage. His review was so out of step with the Yamaha amp that after much online criticism they had someone else whoâs system had a TT do another review of the amp!
1 Like
In theory I understand Stereophileâs rationale, which is we want our reviewers to be so darn familiar with their system, and use that system for their reviews so that theyâll focus on differences they hear and be able to attribute those differences to the component under review.
The problem though, is if you want systems representative of the component to be reviewed, what youâd end up with if you stick to it is JA reviews the budget stuff, Fremer the uber-expensive stuff, and the others in the middle.
I think thatâs unduly rigid from what would be ideal, but every approach has tradeoffs. I think experienced consumers or reviewers are able to adjust and make conclusions that need not be so tightly boxed as Stereophileâs position dictates. But thatâs just my opinion.
For example, I think a reviewer could select a compatible system and listen to it for an hour or two, then pop in the component for review, listen to it, and be able to draw conclusions (assuming all gear is broken in, of course). Pop-in comparative products for review, and on you go. It isnât that difficult. Repeat over course of week and yeah, experienced reviewers could make that work and get better, more helpful, reviews, especially if they increased the number of comparative/competitor products they auditioned the component under review against for the chosen system.
1 Like
Sounds like it is not worthwhile reading what they have to say. Glad I only do so when you all freak out.
1 Like
This guy loved itâŚand heâs a Dr.
4 Likes
review stated holds its own with far more expensive DACs
wish the referenced DACs were disclosed
1 Like
A Bricasti M1-MDx edged out the MK2 in A-B testing I did with my neighbour and a son. But it was close enough to call it: âholds its ownâ. Consider that Ted was working on fixing popping sounds the last few months, not on musical performance, we plan another A-B session this Summer.
1 Like
Nice review but. . . .started the review at 100 hours? Mine didnât really consistently seem broken in til after 500 hours or more.
Thanks @gd7288
The review also states,âAfter a 100-hour break-in period, the sound had really opened up and critical listening began with the MK2 DACâs grounds and shells liftedâ
100 hours isnât enough for a review of this dac, unless it already had significant burn in prior. 500 hours was revelatory in my experience!
I canât really say the same, Philip. Compared to the original DS DAC, the MkII showed most of what it was going to do after maybe 200 hours. Anything after that was refinement.
1 Like
I wouldnât necessarily agree with that myself. More like 400 before it was just refinement.
1 Like
Meh. To each his/her own. YMMV. So on and so forth.
2 Likes
Been away for a spell and - wow . . .
Brings back memories of the measurement wars of the 70âs and 80âs. Anyone recall the THD race to the bottom, then the TIM (transient intermodulation distortion) and slew rate discussions?
Measurements, well, they measure things. Those things may or may not relate to what the ear hardware and grey matter wetware interprets as âSQ.â So while a reviewer may rank gear by measurements, I take those conclusions with a grain of salt.
I consider this horse well-beaten.
2 Likes
@tony22 and @lonson
It could well have been earlier in the burn in process that it hit that transformative threshold with my DAC, but I just wasnât listening. As mentioned, I had been really busy with work, so I didnât have time to listen yet the DSD Mk2 was still burning in. When I did get back to listening, it had just passed 500 hrs and that was quite a jump from a week before. If Iâd been listening regularly, I might have picked it sooner.
1 Like
@Paul Is there a way we can get the latest firmware to fix the DSD to PCM change that @tedsmith said is fixed but waiting for the next UI change. Can your team release that next release w/o waiting for UI? They can be independent of each other. I am getting a bit frustrated swapping from DSD to PCM and getting the loud static and sometimes it requires a reboot of the DAC to end it. My BHK300 on the right channel went in to clipping and had to recycle that today as well.
4 Likes
Ouch. You just got those 300âs. Thatâs no way to start out a love affair.