D100 disappointments

[radambe]

I've had the D100 in my system for a few months now (outlined below). What i've noticed, compared to my Simaudio Moon Equinox SE CDP, is that although bass has more punch/slam, the soundstage collapses in both width and depth and the high end seems a bit rolled off. There seems to be a general lack of "air" or "space" when comparing the two. I am running the D100 via the fixed level balanced outs and the Simaudio cdp via single ended. I have done my A/B's by comparing the analog outputs of the Simaudio to the coax output via the D100.

Has anyone had similar experiences with the D100? I guess I could try running the D100 via single ended to see if that makes a difference but if it does I can't imagine it would be much.

System - D100 on HRS pucks, Simaudio Equinox SE cdp, MA6300 as preamp into MC275 Mk6, LS330 loudspeakers, Audioquest and Nordost interconnects, Audioquest speaker cables, Quadraspire rack

 

[kevzep]

I've had the D100 in my system for a few months now (outlined below). What i've noticed, compared to my Simaudio Moon Equinox SE CDP, is that although bass has more punch/slam, the soundstage collapses in both width and depth and the high end seems a bit rolled off. There seems to be a general lack of "air" or "space" when comparing the two. I am running the D100 via the fixed level balanced outs and the Simaudio cdp via single ended. I have done my A/B's by comparing the analog outputs of the Simaudio to the coax output via the D100.

Has anyone had similar experiences with the D100? I guess I could try running the D100 via single ended to see if that makes a difference but if it does I can't imagine it would be much.

System - D100 on HRS pucks, Simaudio Equinox SE cdp, MA6300 as preamp into MC275 Mk6, LS330 loudspeakers, Audioquest and Nordost interconnects, Audioquest speaker cables, Quadraspire rack

have you tried running the D100 balanced straight into the MC275 rather than through the MA6300....The D100 is technically a pre-amp.....

The D100 balanced outputs are actually very cool, they are quad balanced like the amps, so you can go quad balanced all the way from the pre to power amp if you have a quad balanced power amp....

Or try unbalanced out of the D100 into the MA6300.....

I have heard guys talking about using the unbalanced outputs before....and its usually when they are going from the D100 into a pre-amp.

Talking about collapsing sound stages and such seems to me like a little bit of over-analysis to me......Are you sure that's what's happening?

 

[radambe]

Yes I've tried running direct to the 275. When I did, I didn't really notice much of a difference in anything. Which to me was a good thing as I'm stuck with the integrated for now as my pre until I can afford to get something proper. I need it for my turntable which is probably 50% of my playback.

I agree that I could totally be overanalyzing this thing and probably am, but I keep coming back to it which is why I thought I might as well post about it. I tried to tell myself I was getting a little audio nuts about this whole thing, as I REALLY want the D100 to kick ass (keeping it all mcintosh would be awesome) but I keep coming back to this silly thing. My equinox just sounds bigger, more spacious, more real. Two records that really highlight the differences are the new Boards of Canada, and Yo-Yo Ma's not-so-Bach cello suites (the DSD recording but I have the CD not the SACD). The cello on this recording is clearly further away through the equinox- as if it's on the stage, where the D100 puts it in my room (lacking a lot of the sense of the room in which it was recorded).

My only idea at this point is to try the unbalanced outs maybe. I really want to start liking this thing. It's not that it sucks, but my equinox has kind of ruined it for me haha. Oh jeez audio nuts.

 

[kevzep]

Yes I've tried running direct to the 275. When I did, I didn't really notice much of a difference in anything. Which to me was a good thing as I'm stuck with the integrated for now as my pre until I can afford to get something proper. I need it for my turntable which is probably 50% of my playback.

I agree that I could totally be overanalyzing this thing and probably am, but I keep coming back to it which is why I thought I might as well post about it. I tried to tell myself I was getting a little audio nuts about this whole thing, as I REALLY want the D100 to kick ass (keeping it all mcintosh would be awesome) but I keep coming back to this silly thing. My equinox just sounds bigger, more spacious, more real. Two records that really highlight the differences are the new Boards of Canada, and Yo-Yo Ma's not-so-Bach cello suites (the DSD recording but I have the CD not the SACD). The cello on this recording is clearly further away through the equinox- as if it's on the stage, where the D100 puts it in my room (lacking a lot of the sense of the room in which it was recorded).

My only idea at this point is to try the unbalanced outs maybe. I really want to start liking this thing. It's not that it sucks, but my equinox has kind of ruined it for me haha. Oh jeez audio nuts.

Well, I would first try unbalanced from the D100 into the MC275, then unbalanced from the D100>MA6300>MC275 and see how that goes....

Could be something to do with the quad balanced circuitry in the balanced outputs perhaps....

 

[ron-c]

D100 into MC275MKVI should be a great sounding system. We use this all the time at audio shows with a CD player, computer and MR88 feeding the D100 and using XR50 speakers with McIntosh cables.
System synergy is always the key and it sounds like you have something mismatched.

Thanks,
Ron-C

 

[JWJW]

Mine rocks! Love it. :yes:

My only real complaint it not being able to label the inputs. Kind of silly having to leave a piece of paper around so my wife can use our system.... :sigh:

 

[Rick58]

I am running the D100 via the fixed level balanced outs and the Simaudio cdp via single ended. I have done my A/B's by comparing the analog outputs of the Simaudio to the coax output via the D100.

I wonder if something is amiss in the Simaudio coax output (cable impedance mismatch? bad cable? less than stellar digital circuitry in this output? Some issue in the transport -> coax output chain?). Seems like there's many differences in the two chains, almost apples to oranges.

http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/904simaudio/index.html but I don't see any references to the digital output being used or measured. Dang!

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/cd-players-imaging-and-soundstage.85849/ someone commented "SimAudio Moon Equinox CDP ($2,000-ish); I was stunned by the imaging that one provided (through the Moon i-3 amp, into Quad 12L speakers; that may be an important consideration too)"

Seems like there's a couple of things to try/change before totally blaming the D100. One would HOPE that it sounds as good or better than a nearly 10 year old CD player.

Is there another digital source you can try? Another transport? Or, rip the CD (using lossless method like AIFF or WAV) to your computer and use that as the source into the D100 ... if there's a way to connect them, I'm not familiar with the D100. This isn't BETTER than using the Simaudio digital output, necessarily, but if you can get a setup that sounds better/equivalent to the Equinox analog outputs, it may shed some light on things.

I hate to mention the possibility that the Simaudio 'adds' depth/space where there isn't that much on the recording (as a 'distortion') but no comments I have read support that idea. Maybe the frequency response of the Simaudio analog outputs emphasize something 'just so' that spotlights the imaging? I don't think there's a 'measurement' that can tell you how a component reproduces space and depth, if there were, I'd be all over components that excel in those areas!

I sympathize with you - imaging, space, and soundstage depth are my Holy Grails and I value those aspects almost above more basic things like 'truth of timbre' or whatever ...

 

[radambe]

Thanks so much everyone for the responses. I think ripping a CD into my mac mini (feeding the D100 USB as my 3rd source), and feeding the D100 into one of the unbalanced inputs on the MA6300 is a great next step. This way I can use the same interconnects (nordost purple haze), rule out any potential anything that may also be going on with the MA6300 balanced input, and also rule out any differences with the equinox's digital output. I'll report back once I give this a go.

BTW, the D100 would be way more badass if it had even a single analog input (for the turntable so many of us run next to our digital sources like computers and cd's). It's crazy to me that in order to gain that tiny bit of functionality I must spend exactly double on my preamp, even if I don't necessarily need all the other added functionality of something like a C48.

 

[kingstoneage]

D100 into MC275MKVI should be a great sounding system. We use this all the time at audio shows with a CD player, computer and MR88 feeding the D100 and using XR50 speakers with McIntosh cables.
System synergy is always the key and it sounds like you have something mismatched.

Thanks,
Ron-C

I use my D100 also with my MA6600, MCD301 and XR50s - no problems at all!
Just good music!

 

[ehborden]

try 'data only' usb cables

One of the coolest things about the d100 is that it does not shake hands with your computer via usb power. I was playing around with usb cables for the longest time but was unable to justify the price tag for such a modest gain. Then I put a small piece of electrical tape covering pin 1 on the A connector of my belkin usb cable... WOW! Much better than some of the $1000 cables i tried. I am now using a YFS Data Only USB Cable and am very happy with my d100. Also, d100 greatly benefits from power conditioning.

my 2 cents.

 

[damacman]

I'd like to see a pic of what you're talking about. Interesting.

 

[kevzep]

One of the coolest things about the d100 is that it does not shake hands with your computer via usb power. I was playing around with usb cables for the longest time but was unable to justify the price tag for such a modest gain. Then I put a small piece of electrical tape covering pin 1 on the A connector of my belkin usb cable... WOW! Much better than some of the $1000 cables i tried. I am now using a YFS Data Only USB Cable and am very happy with my d100. Also, d100 greatly benefits from power conditioning.

my 2 cents.

Can you possibly elaborate on what it is you were trying to improve with these USB cables?
Did you have some kind of interference or something?

 

[ehborden]

Can you possibly elaborate on what it is you were trying to improve with these USB cables?
Did you have some kind of interference or something?

I am convinced that the McIntosh D100 has problems dealing with the 5V DC power that is given to it via your standard USB 2.0 cable. After I eliminated the power line, my d100 presents a much sharper image. Some expensive USB cables do a good job of isolating the data signal from the power line but I really couldn't hear much of a difference with them in my system. That is why I'm pretty sure that the power line itself is causing problems with the electronics inside the the d100. Pin 1 on your standard USB cable is the right most pin when looking into the male end of an A type connector with the pins at the bottom. Take a piece of electrical tape just large enough to cover that pin and none of the others (2mm wide and ~1/2inch long). This should eliminate the power portion of your USB cable to the d100. Warning! Most other dac's require the power signal to make contact with the computer so covering pin 1 will cause your computer to not recognize your dac.

I don't know if mcintosh intentionally designed the d100 to not require the power line -- if they did, then they are geniuses and should be advertising that fact.

 

[Max77]

There shouldn't be a need for expensive cables to "isolate" the data from the power line. The way the USB protocol works is that the data is guaranteed to arrive accurately. It's digital, it's not analog. There's no "better" way for bits to travel down a cable to their destination. If the CRC is incorrect, that is the data received and the original data are different, the data is discarded and re-sent. The data sent and received are 1:1 exact. A cable will not change this.

 

[kevzep]

I am convinced that the McIntosh D100 has problems dealing with the 5V DC power that is given to it via your standard USB 2.0 cable. After I eliminated the power line, my d100 presents a much sharper image. Some expensive USB cables do a good job of isolating the data signal from the power line but I really couldn't hear much of a difference with them in my system. That is why I'm pretty sure that the power line itself is causing problems with the electronics inside the the d100. Pin 1 on your standard USB cable is the right most pin when looking into the male end of an A type connector with the pins at the bottom. Take a piece of electrical tape just large enough to cover that pin and none of the others (2mm wide and ~1/2inch long). This should eliminate the power portion of your USB cable to the d100. Warning! Most other dac's require the power signal to make contact with the computer so covering pin 1 will cause your computer to not recognize your dac.

I don't know if mcintosh intentionally designed the d100 to not require the power line -- if they did, then they are geniuses and should be advertising that fact.

Right, I thought as much.......

There shouldn't be a need for expensive cables to "isolate" the data from the power line. The way the USB protocol works is that the data is guaranteed to arrive accurately. It's digital, it's not analog. There's no "better" way for bits to travel down a cable to their destination. If the CRC is incorrect, that is the data received and the original data are different, the data is discarded and re-sent. The data sent and received are 1:1 exact. A cable will not change this.

This is pretty much what I was going to say......no need to say any more really....

 

[ehborden]

Right, I thought as much.......



This is pretty much what I was going to say......no need to say any more really....

LOL.
I'm not trying to get into an argument about digital signals, though you make it extremely tempting. My claim was that the 5v power feed is interfering with the d100's electronics causing noise. I'm not claiming that their is bit imperfection.

Although, bit imperfection is possible through a usb cable via voltage threshold problems. Your dac still has to distinguish a 1 from a 0, and that is done via a voltage.

 

[ehborden]

There shouldn't be a need for expensive cables to "isolate" the data from the power line. The way the USB protocol works is that the data is guaranteed to arrive accurately. It's digital, it's not analog. There's no "better" way for bits to travel down a cable to their destination. If the CRC is incorrect, that is the data received and the original data are different, the data is discarded and re-sent. The data sent and received are 1:1 exact. A cable will not change this.

How does your dac know if the data received is different than that sent? If it knew wouldnt it already have the correct data?

When data is being resent, does the music pause or something?

 

[Max77]

How does your dac know if the data received is different than that sent? If it knew wouldnt it already have the correct data?

When data is being resent, does the music pause or something?

The USB protocol sends data in batches up to 1kb in size along with a CRC to verify the data was sent correctly. If the receiver (the DAC) notices an incorrect CRC, the sender will re-transmit the data. Your second question doesn't really make any sense so I'm not sure how to respond to it. This is for USB 2.0, 3.0 works a little differently and offers better protection from interference but I don't know as much about it. Same concept, though.

 

[Max77]

Although, bit imperfection is possible through a usb cable via voltage threshold problems. Your dac still has to distinguish a 1 from a 0, and that is done via a voltage.

Yes, that is why there are methods that I mentioned built into the protocol to detect this. Transferring data via a USB cable to a DAC is no different than transferring files off a USB hard drive to your computer. People seem to buy into a lot of the "magic" around audio and forget the science underneath. If you opened a JPEG file from an external hard drive and the data didn't arrive to your computer correctly, you would have a corrupted file. Not a file that doesn't look as clear as a properly transferred file. Same thing when audio data is transferred to a DAC. A $1000 USB cable won't make JPEGs loaded from an external hard drive look any better than a $5 cable. Data is data.

I'm not attempting to incite a cable war, just stating the facts of how the USB protocol works.

 

[smartin53]

Yes, that is why there are methods that I mentioned built into the protocol to detect this. Transferring data via a USB cable to a DAC is no different than transferring files off a USB hard drive to your computer. People seem to buy into a lot of the "magic" around audio and forget the science underneath. If you opened a JPEG file from an external hard drive and the data didn't arrive to your computer correctly, you would have a corrupted file. Not a file that doesn't look as clear as a properly transferred file. Same thing when audio data is transferred to a DAC. A $1000 USB cable won't make JPEGs loaded from an external hard drive look any better than a $5 cable. Data is data.

I'm not attempting to incite a cable war, just stating the facts of how the USB protocol works.

I'll second this. Sure there are chances you can get a crappy cable but USB is an on/off situation generally. Same with optical cables. It's a digital signal so analog terms do not apply as long as the info gets from point a to point b. If it does not, it just stops working. You wouldn't get a change in audio quality.