Which
DAC -- Benchmark or PS Audio?
March
14, 2010
Marc,
Have
you reviewed the Benchmark DAC1 USB or PS Audio Digital Link III? I'm deciding which one
to go with. Any thoughts would be helpful. I should mention that it's not for computer
audio -- just straight digital-to-analog conversion.
Sheldon
Simon
I
have no experience with either DAC you mention, so I can't help you there. However, let me
plug an older DAC that I do own and admire greatly: the Timbre TT-1, which sounds
amazingly analoglike and, I'm sure, will compete with many new DACs, even though it's more
than a decade old. Because so many people need USB input for use with a computer, DACs
like the TT-1 have lost a great deal of their value. It cost $4000 new, but I bought one
for $700 used. I owned a TT-1 when it was new, and I was shocked, after all these years,
by how good the used unit sounded, competing favorably with current digital sources that
cost what its list price was. This DAC isn't easy to find, which means that if you buy
one, you shouldn't have a hard time reselling it if you don't like it. -Marc
Mickelson
No.15
"That good?"
March
12, 2010
Marc,
I
read your article
on Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions Formula No.15. That good? Reason I ask is that I
am considering switching from my (old) Record Research Labs and (new) VPI fluids in my VPI
16.5 cleaning machine. The AIVS products have garnered very good comments all around, but
your article strikes a chord with me, as I like the ease of a two-step versus a three- or
a four-step process, as in the case of Walker products.
I
tracked down a Canadian distributor, and I am thinking of picking up a few 32oz bottles of
this. But wanted to see if you had any additional thoughts on it.
Al
Monroe
Like
you, I am put off by three- and four-step cleaning regimens because of the time they take,
although I do admit that they are effective. I am on my second 32oz bottle of Audio
Intelligent Vinyl Solutions Formula No.15, and it continues to impress me. I use the fluid
as a general cleaner for new LPs and ones in good shape and for deep-cleaning especially
dirty ones. Along with a water rinse, it handles both roles as well as any combination of
cleaning fluids I've used. AIVS also has a one-step fluid, Formula No.6, and it may work
just as well as No.15 for new LPs. However, for now and the foreseeable future, two steps
seem ideal to get LPs really clean, and I'll continue using No.15. -Marc Mickelson
Inline
attenuators for output reduction?
March
8, 2010
Marc,
I
would like some input on the pros and cons of inline attenuators (from Rothwell). My new
CD player, a Meridian G08.2, is overloading my preamp, a McIntosh C32. From what I see on
the Internet, this is not uncommon when new CD players are interfaced with older
solid-state electronics. My previous CD player (a Meridian 207) had the option of variable
output, which the G08.2 omits. Your thoughts or additional questions would be appreciated.
Bill
Thomas
I
have experience with adjustable EVS inline attenuators, which I used directly into
amplifiers for volume control. Sonically, they were as transparent as the very best
preamp, although a bit awkward to use, because I had them connected to mono amps that were
placed far apart, which meant walking up to each amp simply to change volume. You would be
using the Rothwell attenuators for a different duty: reducing the output of your CD player
(2.3V, which is a little above average) so the volume control of your preamp has greater
range, and the lowest setting isn't too loud for normal listening. The Rothwell
attenuators are constructed like the EVS -- resistors are put in the signal path to reduce
the output of what's immediately upstream. Theoretically and practically, this is the best
way to effect this, short of having a switch on your CD player to do it. The 10dB
reduction of the Rothwell attenuators is quite substantial and should have the desired
effect. However, I would also experiment with them between your preamp and amp, as your
preamp might have substantial gain, and the attenuators may work better in sonic terms
there, because you'll gain 10dB in signal-to-noise ratio. -Marc Mickelson
Sasha
W/P vs. MAXX 2
March
1, 2010
Marc,
I'm an owner of Wilson MAXX 2s -- speakers you owned
yourself before the MAXX 3s. For a few years now, I've been enjoying them tremendously,
and while the industry keeps manufacturing new sets of speakers, declaring them "the
best of the best" with stratospheric prices, I do believe that the MAXX 2's
capabilities stand high against them and make me wonder what there is to justify the new
kings' asking prices. The MAXX 2s may not deserve the title "the worlds best,"
but I do believe their ability to reproduce music that is sometimes very close to live
music still makes them contenders among the very best. While audiophiles tend to consider
a new set of speakers as better than their predecessor, you often find that the case is
mere "different," not necessarily "better."
I read all of your reviews of Wilson Audio speakers,
including the one of Alexandria X-2 Series 2, where you wrote that the MAXX 2, if
manufactured by others, may viably be declared as competition for the Alexandria X-2
Series 2. That being said, I do admit my own weakness (as a former owner of WATT/Puppy 6es
and 7s -- often not being persuaded by their reproduction of music), and I wonder how you
find the new-generation Sasha W/P versus the MAXX 2. I have not had the
chance to hear the Sashas yet, so I'm curious. Are they a step toward the MAXX 2, or is it
time for me to open my wallet again? [sigh]
Mike Cohen
A pair of Sasha W/Ps were set up in my listening room
two weeks ago, and I've been listening to them since. I will be writing at some length
about the speakers, but I can certainly tell you a few things about them now.
It has been a long time since I heard the MAXX 2 in
my room, but I am very familiar with the significantly updated MAXX 3. The latest MAXX is
really the one to which the Sasha W/P most easily compares. Like the MAXX 3, the Sasha W/P
is astoundingly coherent, with no frequency range, or driver, clumsily indicating that it
is a multi-way speaker. Along with this, it offers great dynamic coherence -- the ability
to scale up and down in volume smoothly and realistically. It displays much of the MAXX
3's midrange texture and buoyancy, and it throws a very wide, surprisingly tall, and
especially deep soundstage. Wilson calls it "intimate," meaning that it sounds
close-up and vivid. This is not a frequency-response characteristic but a spatial one. The
performers may be closer, but the ultimate depth of each recording remains intact -- and,
along with the intimacy, can make for thrilling listening.
I think in some important ways -- including
throughout the midrange -- the Sasha W/P is an improvement over the MAXX 2, a judgment I
make, once again, from memory. I am sure you would still achieve greater large-scale
dynamic abilities and deeper bass from the MAXX 2, and that speaker is also exceedingly
coherent. If you want the best of both worlds, the MAXX 3 is the way to go. Short of that,
and taking price into consideration, the Sasha W/P is special -- an expensive speaker that
also represents terrific value. Replacing a renowned product with one that's markedly
better and costs less is one of David Wilson's greatest achievements -- in a career that's
abundant with them. -Marc Mickelson
E-mail us your questions, concerns and
suggestions. We won't reprint every letter, but we will answer them all.
