Directstream Mk 2 observations

Isn’t the version Paul is discussing not yet released, but available in a few days?

Well, it’s been “coming soon” for quite some time.

We could maybe call it a few Airlens-days, which translates in months :wink:

The Massive beta version works great as long as you do not use the Mk2 directly into a power amp. This may be why some people are waiting for the production release which should 1eleminate the problem.

Does it means issue with headphone amps? I use 100 volume on DAC and straight to HP amps…

I go straight into two Benchmarks AHB2’s in mono. No problems. I do have the gain turned down though.

1 Like

I have no idea about performance going directly to a headphone amp. I would think that using 100 on the DAC and then controlling the volume with the headphone amp would be no problem, but I have n experience doing that,

The noise issue that a select few have complained about has been greatly exaggerated. In some cases other equipment such as electronic crossovers used between the dac and the amp were responsible for the trouble. I have tested without the BHK Preamp in the chain directly into my BHK 250 without any issue. I even went so far as to lower the DAC volume to 30 to 35 and ran it in to the preamp with the gain cranked and had no issue. I am not saying there is no equipment out there that is not affected by ultrasonic noise, I am just saying it is not common.

9 Likes

John, Thanks for clarifying this. I have thought about running the same experiment myself, however, the cable changes that I would have to switch and then switch back, have deterred my from doing so.

Running directly into M1200 amps, MK2 at volume 30 plus was running quiet also. I did not hear any noise.

I just like the sound better with BHK pre in between. I am running MK2 at Vol 70 now. This way I can adjust pre to a higher volume above 40 most of the time. This combination seems to work the best in my room.

I still have to run this experiment of what setting of the Mk2 and my preamp setting produce the best sound. I have planned to do it at least six times but it always gets bumped. Fortunately running the Mk2 at 100 and my preamp at whatever volume suits my mood sounds pretty darn good. :grin:

1 Like

I usually subscribe to the if it ain’t broke, it is a good time to make it better philosophy. But it sounds pretty ideal what you have already!

I don’t agree with you saying that the noise issue was exaggerated. I experienced this issue myself with MK2 connected directly to a power amp, the high frequency noise was excessive with this configuration. The problem is solved by using a preamp in between, noise is completely gone. I am wondering if this might caused by the MK2 outputs are directly from the transformers and the impedance changes subject to frequency changes. If you haven’t experienced any issue, thumb ups to you but don’t dismiss others’ opinions when there were quite a few of them! As for connecting MK2 directly to the power amp, I remembered Paul has mentioned in one of his videos saying that the digital volume control in MK2 is largely improved and can be connected to a power amp.

3 Likes

And all-digital households do not need and often do not want pre-amps. Competition above and below PSA have this covered with no issues.

I am happy not to mention this again though. Let’s just wait and see how the next reviews are, as I am a big Massive fan.

3 Likes

IMD in amp/preamp/crossover circuits due to slight non-linearities, triggered by the ultrasonic noise.

Discussed further up this thread (or maybe another one).

Fixable by changing the filtering within the Mk2, and will only affect certain devices.

1 Like

I’ve always wondered, does a passive preamp work with a MK ll that displays this issue? Is it a buffer or active gain stage that’s necessary?

I was expressing how not every user has this issue not trying to say it is not a problem for those that do.

5 Likes

This sounds like it should done by PSA.

perhaps the word “exaggeration” triggered my reaction; usually that implies the issue was blown-up or non-existent.

Correction: the word is “exaggerated” not exaggeration.