MSB Select II arrival

[PeterA]

Mike, I am enjoying this thread and want to bring it back to you and this MSB DAC. You wrote somewhere earlier in this thread that you compare all incoming digital source components to your analog front ends, both vinyl and tape. I presume that means you use those sources as the references against which you judge the MSB. What specifically do you listen for: how convincing it sounds, your musical involvement or enjoyment, specific sonic attributes, or is it something else? This MSB Select II DAC seems to come closer than others to the qualities of your analog that you so enjoy. Could you talk a bit more about that? I am also curious to learn what "This sounds best to me" means to you.

May I ask you to describe the ways in which the MSB and NVS sound like your experience with live, unamplified music? Which one sounds more real or convincing to you? Does that even matter to you, or do you see these as different interests/activities? Is a reference to actual live music not as critical to you in this evaluation stage? How does it matter to you in terms of long term listener satisfaction?

I have enjoyed reading your writings about your system and room improvements over time, but I don't really have a sense of what drives your obvious passion and momentous efforts to constantly improve what you have to ever higher levels. Is it to discover and own the current state of the art? You seem to be on a constant path, always moving forward toward the next improvement. Ordinarily, this would imply to me that you are not satisfied with what you have. But, I have been following your posts long enough to understand that you are immensely satisfied with your current gear and could stop any time, and yet, you continue onward. It is remarkable.

 

[nc42acc]

I think DAC selection is a personal preference thing and cannot be described in absolutes. Mike has worked hard and acquired a very well regarded world class DAC that brings him joy in listening to music. Lets all applaud his decision and query him on HIS personal experience he is having with making this monumental upgrade.

 

[Al M.]

I think DAC selection is a personal preference thing and cannot be described in absolutes.

Agreed. Also, as has been discussed here, how well a given DAC matches may be system dependent.

 

[asiufy]

I have the Analog DAC and recently heard the Reference in my system, so I can give some sort of feedback albeit not to full Select 2 status. The biggest difference is in liquidity, decay, and overall relaxation (continuousness another way to say it). The Reference does this in spades unlike digital I have heard before. Ironically, the Reference also has a drive factor that is very addicting and overall weight in the bass is excellent. The Analog doesn't have the new "hybrid dacs" that its bigger brothers have, although yes, they are discrete ladder dacs. I do think the Analog dac has good tone and 3d portrayal of space which is a weakness of digital in my experience.

But its a clear step behind and not just on an incremental basis like much of digital. I have had several listening sessions since the demo to confirm this. Note, I do not have the upgraded Analog DAC power base.

Great description, Keith!
Indeed, while the design philosophy is the same behind both products, the execution is vastly different, as they should, frankly, given the target price difference.
If anybody wants to audition any one of the MSB DACs, let me know...


cheers,
alex

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, I am enjoying this thread and want to bring it back to you and this MSB DAC. You wrote somewhere earlier in this thread that you compare all incoming digital source components to your analog front ends, both vinyl and tape. I presume that means you use those sources as the references against which you judge the MSB. What specifically do you listen for: how convincing it sounds, your musical involvement or enjoyment, specific sonic attributes, or is it something else? This MSB Select II DAC seems to come closer than others to the qualities of your analog that you so enjoy. Could you talk a bit more about that? I am also curious to learn what "This sounds best to me" means to you.

May I ask you to describe the ways in which the MSB and NVS sound like your experience with live, unamplified music? Which one sounds more real or convincing to you? Does that even matter to you, or do you see these as different interests/activities? Is a reference to actual live music not as critical to you in this evaluation stage? How does it matter to you in terms of long term listener satisfaction?

I have enjoyed reading your writings about your system and room improvements over time, but I don't really have a sense of what drives your obvious passion and momentous efforts to constantly improve what you have to ever higher levels. Is it to discover and own the current state of the art? You seem to be on a constant path, always moving forward toward the next improvement. Ordinarily, this would imply to me that you are not satisfied with what you have. But, I have been following your posts long enough to understand that you are immensely satisfied with your current gear and could stop any time, and yet, you continue onward. It is remarkable.

Peter,

thanks for the kind words. today has been busy at work, and tonight I have relatives in town and am tied up. I appreciate your thoughtful questions (you (and Micro) do ask the hard/deep questions) and don't want you to think I'm ignoring you. I will dig into this as soon as I can.

and I will repeat; my recent comments were directed to Brad's single comment, and not intended to slow the overall flow of the thread.

 

[morricab]

the issue is not the thread direction, ITS YOUR COMMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never criticized yours or anyone else's comments. only your statement about the thread direction. jeez guys, read what I wrote.

Why the shouting, Mike? Is it really worth getting worked up or is this thread so important to your ego?

Why don't you reread what I wrote, Mike.

"After 900+ posts who cares what the OP was? What Mike thought of the sound was exhausted long ago... "

You don't like this comment but I am struggling to find a reason why this comment would have any effect on you whatsoever. Even if it is factually totally incorrect, so what? Do you really care if a thread you started (it is not your thread...no one has ownership) about your new toy goes off the rails once in a while? Do you really care if I make the statement that it is fine if it goes off the rails when the useful content from the OP has been pretty well trodden?

 

[bonzo75]

Mike, might have missed, but how much MQA are you listening to?

 

[spiritofmusic]

I think it was Al M that made a comment he doesn't recognise liquidity, flow and continuousness in live unamplified.
And is not looking for these attributes at home.
I've been binging on classical concerts, two dozen in the last month, all sorts in all kinds of venues.
I can't disagree more w Al.
By its essential nature this music doesn't join the dots like digital at home does, and doesn't have the slight haze that analog at home does.
What it has is just a wave or bubble of total seamless continuous liquidity, albeit w many punctuations that make you jump amongst a trance like zen state of non quantised energy.
I put to you Al that the jump out of yr skin dynamics and uncompromising tone of live classical is not inconsistent w liquid continuousness, and if you're not recognising it at home, maybe something is wrong?

 

[Al M.]

I think it was Al M that made a comment he doesn't recognise liquidity, flow and continuousness in live unamplified.
And is not looking for these attributes at home.
I've been binging on classical concerts, two dozen in the last month, all sorts in all kinds of venues.
I can't disagree more w Al.
By its essential nature this music doesn't join the dots like digital at home does, and doesn't have the slight haze that analog at home does.
What it has is just a wave or bubble of total seamless continuous liquidity, albeit w many punctuations that make you jump amongst a trance like zen state of non quantised energy.
I put to you Al that the jump out of yr skin dynamics and uncompromising tone of live classical is not inconsistent w liquid continuousness, and if you're not recognising it at home, maybe something is wrong?

Marc, I will repeat the reply that I gave to Morricab and which also applies to your experience:

Brad, obviously we experience things very differently.

That's o.k., diversity is the spice of human existence.

And by the way, the idea of actually being able to hear digital 'joining the dots' strikes me as enormously strange.

And the analog waveform at the output of a DAC is, well, analog. How then would you hear 'dots joined' ??? <confused>

 

[spiritofmusic]

Al, that was a tongue in cheek comment. Only meant figuratively.
For me, I do "perceive" the feeling that digital reconstructs the waveform as a colder presentation than analog, not the "natural" presentation of analog IMHO.
But certainly, analog has some haze and waviness compared to digital that a digital fan would class as imprecision.
Obviously we all hear differently.
If we didn't, there would be a single system we'd all be listening to, and probably no forums except for "wow, have you heard this great album?" ones.
And maybe we're down to ambiguity of nomenclature.
Again.
Liquidity, flow and continuity confused w undynamic smoothness, blandness, homogeneity and lack of timbral differentiation.
Whereas in my case w my analog, SETs and full range/no crossover spkrs and to die for room acoustics allowing full bloom w no blunting of dynamics.
I'm not comparing my sound as anywhere near emulating the holy grail of live dynamics, only that I'm getting no compromise on tube density and liquidity w dynamic shifts.
Ie listening to music at home w this constant diet of live unamplified isn't creating any cognitive dissonance or jarring deficit.

 

[PeterA]

But certainly, analog has some haze and waviness compared to digital that a digital fan would class as imprecision.

Marc, I can't agree with this generalization of analog. Perhaps it is what some hear on some systems.

 

[Matej Isak]

I wonder if the disagreement is between whether the music or the listener is "relaxed". I tend to describe the listening experience as "relaxed", that is the listener is relaxed because his mind/body is not struggling with artifacts that sound unnatural. He is able to let go and loose himself to the music. Perhaps some describe music or the sound of a system as "relaxed" if it is slow, soft, or lacks energy. So much of audio discussion seems to depend on semantics.

This was my exact "problem" with digital, and why I was holding on the analog for so long... I coudn't stand listening for more then 5-15, before the "digititis" has kicked in...

 

[Tango]

What kind of haze are you refering to sir...especially comparing to digital. With good tapes and records, I hear no haze from both my tape machine and turntable. Could it be that the haze you talk about come from one's system.

Kind regards,
Tang

 

[spiritofmusic]

Peter and Tang, so analog is just right, w no apparent shortcomings at all?
It has perfect speed stability compared to digital uber precision?
It has no issues w groove wear?
It has no issues w end of groove modulation?
No issues w tangential arm tracking errors?
No issues w eccentricity on centre hole?
No wear and tear issues?
No issues w belt/humidity interaction?
Cmon now, if you can't see where analog falls short on at least some areas of ultimate precision, then there's no point me arguing w you.
I've been collecting vinyl for 4 decades, and am as into it as a format as you.
But living with a superbly evocative and emotional, yet highly precise, digital front end, and hearing the best streamers have to offer w the SGM over 18 months regularly, IMHO has highlighted where analog is not supreme.
So much so I made a conscious decision to draw my analog closer to the best of digital, not the other way around, by going for a non belt design to max speed stability and deep bass dynamic impact thru greater torque, cut out tangential tracking issue with an air bearing linear tracking arm, augmented by a pretty neutral cart and soon to go on a Stacore.
So yes, I'll argue all day analog is king when it comes to tone density, timbral accuracy, midrange realism, pure verve and emotional involvement.
But I can't argue its top dog on deep bass extension, and those factors I listed above that do contribute to a slight level, a smidgeon, of hint of imprecision, haze, waviness, whatever generic phrase one wants to use, that is definitely there.
I've always contended that despite vinyl's inherent playback imperfections, it STILL slaps digital in the face and puts it in its place, and that's even over three decades into digital's deep evolution with a $120k dac STILL not able to fully put analog away.
So I can totally be in an ongoing love affair w analog yet not be blind to its shortcomings.
Of course, my system is nowhere as refined as either of yours, but I'm aware of some analog quirks in plenty of bigger hitting systems than mine.

 

[Al M.]

Peter and Tang, so analog is just right, w no apparent shortcomings at all?
It has perfect speed stability compared to digital uber precision?
It has no issues w groove wear?
It has no issues w end of groove modulation?
No issues w tangential arm tracking errors?
No issues w eccentricity on centre hole?
No wear and tear issues?
No issues w belt/humidity interaction?
Cmon now, if you can't see where analog falls short on at least some areas of ultimate precision, then there's no point me arguing w you.
I've been collecting vinyl for 4 decades, and am as into it as a format as you.
But living with a superbly evocative and emotional, yet highly precise, digital front end, and hearing the best streamers have to offer w the SGM over 18 months regularly, IMHO has highlighted where analog is not supreme.

Marc,

you are speaking for yourself. I have heard Peter A.'s analog many times, and it is extremely precise -- on the right recordings and pressings. I say this as a guy who listens to digital only at home, so I have no skin in the game when it comes to analog. If you want to talk about the shortcomings of your analog, that is another matter.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Sure, whatever.
As you said, we all hear differently.
Maybe those ideal opportunities you had at Peter were when all the factors I mentioned weren't issues, not as much as those lps you felt weren't so impressive.
And I'll hold up my hand and say I have my own personal pros and cons in my own system.
My tt, arm, cart, phono, cdp, amps, don't add up to the market value of Peter's complete analog front end.
Now before I get unfairly accused of dissing a great system like Peter's I'll bow out gracefully .
But I'll stick to my points of view that analog at even exhalted levels by its very definition has discontinuities, and live music is as continuous as it gets.
Sorry to be such a contradiction in terms (analog junkie hears where digital beats vinyl, live unamplified is perfectly continuous), it would be just too easy to stick to what appear to be incontestable viewpoints.
As I've gotten older and more experienced, everything in life, incl audio laws set in stone deserve to be argued against.
And hence I made a concious attempt to try and find analogl that emulates the best of digital, and then analog that tries to get past some established inconsistencies AS I HEAR THEM.
And before the comment comes in that I should spend big on analog, my current tt beat a TW AC3 in direct home demo comparison.
That's why I chose it.

 

[Al M.]

In fact, I specifically made a comment about Peter's turntable being a precision instrument in my last post about listening impressions on his system thread a month ago, after having been blown away by what I heard:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?12853-Sublime-Sound&p=460709&viewfull=1#post460709

 

[Tango]

Peter and Tang, so analog is just right, w no apparent shortcomings at all?
It has perfect speed stability compared to digital uber precision?
It has no issues w groove wear?
It has no issues w end of groove modulation?
No issues w tangential arm tracking errors?
No issues w eccentricity on centre hole?
No wear and tear issues?
No issues w belt/humidity interaction?
Cmon now, if you can't see where analog falls short on at least some areas of ultimate precision, then there's no point me arguing w you.

I was addressing my question only to "analog haze" sir. Pls dont take my question as if I am an all for analog guy. Yes I do prefer many aspects you mentioned as analog. But I am really a "anything any format that sound good to me" guy. And I just thought the haze you mentioned cannot be generalized to specific format. Have I heard a haze when played a tt? Yes I have. But I also had gotten rid of it. So I think it's not the format.

Kind regards,
Tang

 

[microstrip]

This was my exact "problem" with digital, and why I was holding on the analog for so long... I coudn't stand listening for more then 5-15, before the "digititis" has kicked in...

Fortunately my digital based system does not suffer from "digititis" since the Forsell days ... And since long we could assemble systems not suffering from this disease, although accepting compromises is other areas.

Do you suffer from "digititis" when you listen to good digital sourced LPs?

IMHO most of the time "digititis" is created by interaction between system parts, the same way we can have horrible "analoguitis".

 

[Al M.]

And I just thought the haze you mentioned cannot be generalized to specific format. Have I heard a haze when played a tt? Yes I have. But I also had gotten rid of it. So I think it's not the format.

Kind regards,
Tang

Yes, lesser analog can sound hazy and imprecise, compared to great digital. That is also why I am in disbelief when some people say that even a cheaper turntable set-up is better than most digital. Perhaps they have some extreme aural sensitivities to perceived digital artifacts.

While it is clear that great analog can be absolutely outstanding, I think that in the lower price ranges very good sound can more easily be had with digital.