MSB Select DAC II. The way every DAC on the planet should be built.
- Thread starter Blizzard
- Start date
I have been sharing information. The criticism is coming from others, not me. The point of this thread was to discuss the advantages of modularity. How is this criticizing?
A great example of criticism was when Mike L decided to jump on the criticism bandwagon earlier in this thread. Until I pointed out the fact that his precious GG was in fact built in a modular form factor. Of course he had no idea, as he frowns upon folks who possess that kind of knowledge. Shortly after he didn't have anything more to contribute.
Andre, takes the prize on this thread so far though as the #1 advocate of poor engineering. But when your in his position, I can't see how it's possible to be unbiased. You have 2 choices, sell out the companies you endorse, or sell out yourself. Must be tough. In between a rock and a hard place.
Last edited:
No, his post is here: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...he-planet-should-be-built&p=356638#post356638
Ok can someone please explain to me all the hostility towards Blizzard? He starts a perfectly normal and to me interesting post and so far has been called sheep, unintelligent, dumb, clownish and has reacted extremely well to the insults spewed by the angry mob, he either has nerves of steel or doesn´t give a sh.t
The MSB´s innards are a pleasure to look at, modularity for me is essential at this price point to justify the investment, although in all ernest I can´t help but to think about DAC´s as computers, who amongst us would buy a $90,000 laptop or PC knowing Moore´s law will kick in two years down the road? In DAC world things move a lot faster.
That's odd it wasn't there before. And it just popped up in my email at 7:50 today.
Well As a newcomer to WBF I have been following this thread and the GG with interest to get some BI on what people think of having modularity in the DAC. More so for the perception of its advantages more-so than it being the "best" way to do things.
In my observations, you have made a number of good points. Resale value and the ability to upgrade what you already own and prefer to keep in your system to continue to enjoy rather than selling and buying again to upgrade and losing your shirt. Modularity is certainly a step in that direction and benefits those who want to stay with the digital times.
However, your delivery and negation of the points of your peers seem to be the achilles heel to your "sharing" if you want to call it that. As Andre pointed out, listening to the units is #1. Modularity, in theory, would allow for the latest tech to always sound the best, but it is not the case. Poorly designed components around those new chips could warrant upgrades a moot point to the sum of its parts that are inferior compared to a well designed non modular dac that gets all of it right. Then you keep switching your points to modularity being the best way to just being the "suggested" best way.
MSB and GG are great reference points to support your case as well as your own results with your unit on a well designed unit and the benefits of its upgrade path. But those who have not benefited from the actual usage of such a business model cannot be ignored either.
Good and bad...
Last edited:
I understand that sound is important, and obviously #1 when it comes to audio components. But this thread isn't about subjective testing. It's to point out the advantages of modular form factors. There's plenty of other threads to discuss subjective opinions. And more can easily be started.
Every DAC on the planet could be built in a modular form factor with no consequence to the sound. This is the point I'm trying to get across with this thread. Not that DAC's built in a modular form factor are the only DAC's that sound good.
Time to grow up Blizz. Nobody criticized the thread intent, but please take a moment to reread your opening (pontificating) post.
Mike L thinks his GG is precious??? Puhleeeze man, get a grip. It is among the CHEAPEST gear he owns. The Trinity Dac is nearly triple the price, his new Dart Pre costs more, his poweamps are LEGENDARY, his speakers are phenoms and he has 2 kick azz STudor R2R decks and how many eye popping TTs? Please take a moment to study his profile and see his gear profiled in Audiogon. He is no novice, nor is he a braggart, hence why you may not se why his views carry weight. He knoews FAAAR more than you realize and I knw as we have chatted before and share some high level contacts. You would be surprised some of the names I have on "speed dial"…like Mike.
Yes, you have techie knowledge to contribute, but you DONT know it all. We all have industry pals who are at the top of the food chain (I do) who give me info that shapes my audio world view.
Slow down, deep breath and just present your ideas in a digestible and pleasant manner. Its better to ine on a fine Michelin meal that to scarf down Soylent Green.
I certainly want to see you around long term, and engaged in useless pitch battles everyday.
Clearly rhe emails come in in packets, often long after they have been posted. in a fast moving thread, they can get buried pages back. Call it Forum JITTER! LoL
This is where your point is hypocritical. That is not suggestive nor is it true.
It doesn't take knowledge to purchase a pile of high end audio gear. It just takes money.
The main reason people have a problem with is thread have been either:
1: The DAC they personally own isn't built in a modular form factor
2: They sell, endorse, or manufacturer DAC's that aren't built in a modular form factor.
These 2 points sum it up 100%. End of story.
I read over this thread 20 times last night, and 3 more times in the morning. That post wasn't there.
If you can explain the reason some DAC's can't be built in a modular form factor, and still sound the same I'm 100% open to listen.
Even THAT I am not sure about. GG and MSB are not similar. Select, like CH Precision represent stages of modularity, but the Lampi is not what I call Modular in that sense, its more artisanal build around a central PCB (as a hand build, modularity is of lesser importance). In Dacs, some connections need to be short and others long, certain sectrions isolated, etc. MSB layout looks good for the initial design, but disruptive tech that changes long to short may give an upgrade problem for them in the future to maintain ideal layout and compromises may have to creep in, even if slight.
Now, please accept the counter argument as a point/counterpoint and NOT an attack of "sides". Try to understand the other point of view and that there may be some knowledge behind that.
Now, I do not dismiss what you say and in theory modularity is a good thing.
No Blizz…there you are WRONG!
Sigh…as I said, Mike has some top names on speed dial and access to top class info. People are not just naive clowns man. You KNOW better than that. Chillax and learn how to make friend and influence people. Bull in a China shop does not cut it. The peeps down the road from you are not the only brains in the industry.
Did you put the site in jitter jail and galvanically isolate it before reading? LoL
There's some things that simply don't need to be changed to create a new DAC, if the DAC is specifically engineered this way.
1: The case. No reason you need to replace the case with every model change. Most manufacturers of non-modular designs barely change the styling of the case anyways when the DAC is updated.
2: The screen, switches and buttons.
3: The power supply.
4: The motherboard/backplane.
Those 4 components can easily survive a 10 year life cycle. Even if disruptive technology comes along. The ESS 9018S is a 7 year old chip now, and still over 50% of high end DAC's on the market use it. If we use the Mirus again for example, the next gen ESS chip will probably last another 7-8 years before something better comes along too. So I wouldn't be expecting anything more disruptive than that for a long time. The Mirus (Which was designed in 2012) will be compatible with this chip with a simple board swap.
Last edited:
Easy answer is they would sound the same. Marinate with that for a moment.
I am going to build a modular DAC today. I am going to research which components and parts I would like to add. I decided on the best and make agreements to source my all of my parts built from 7 factories to all arrive at my warehouse for finally assembly modular part by modular part.
Imagine everyone doing it this way. How many "unique" IC are there? Unique transformers?
For those non technical a PC is a much easier example. You have Intel, you have AMD and with it those two choices a modular MB with a few distinguishing features....all the same just a different Label (Dell, HP, Apple)
The secret sauce is in the design and that could be modular or not. It is subjective and so it will never be answered
I judge people on action and what they say. He may know "commercial gear" and how a lot of it sounds, but he doesn't know much about what's under the hood. And he can't stand when people talk about it.
BTW: I read that book, and thought it sucked.
Last edited:
You can use all the same parts, you just have to have the components on separate boards that plug into a main motherboard/backplane. This can be done without compromise to the sound. It's not as complicated as you make it sound. I'm talking 3-4 different boards, instead of 1 big one. They can connect together directly with extremely low resistance gold plated beryllium copper connections. There is no consequence to doing this.
