Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Showing 1 of 295 conversations about:
Typhoon859
141
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
Only 8 hours left. A response to my previous comment would be appreciated so that I possibly still have some time to think this decision through. Thanks! XD
Nov 23, 2016
GraceDesignLove
24
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
Typhoon859Grace Design m920 is not just a studio DAC/Headphone amp .
The first No. m901 began with studio use, but the sound quality is evaluated by audiophiles , and the subsequent m902, m903, and m920 are used for studio monitoring as well as the status as a DAC/Headphone amp for audiophiles has been established.
I think, the part that excellents for audiophiles.
1. Great current feedback amplifier design (Analog Devices AD815AY is discontinued still excellent IC used in the amplifier.) 2. 0.5 dB high-precision digital control of non-contact analog attenuator 3. Third generation of the new dual-stage S-Lock PLL jitter-free circuit 4. ESS Saber M2 32 bit DAC (It is still one of the best sound DACs) 5. Can be selected DAC filter response (fast, slow and minimum phase) 6. Toroidal transformer winding separated in the analog and digital 7. New cross-feed circuit. (Ohman method) 8. Sgnal path does not use any of the electrolytic capacitor
and Grace design unique functional beauty..
search
Etc ... etc .. countless.
Nov 23, 2016
Typhoon859
141
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
GraceDesignLoveHey, thanks for the response! All those things are obviously relevant but there's no way I can know the direct implications those things would have on the sound unless I've looked into all of them specifically, and I wouldn't know how this compares to other amps/DACs, such as the ones I mentioned. You qualified this product standalone, and I understand this. It is way I believe in the investment, for professionals in the audio field, of something like a Benchmark DAC1. The MSRP for the Grace Design m920 is twice that amount however. Considering how close something like the Benchmark is to perfect, completely transparent with almost zero perceivable color/distortion in the sound, how can the m920 really be significantly that much better (or even at all)? That's what I want to know, whether in terms of measurements or in terms of true subjective differences (perhaps with certain kinds of headphones over others), how does Grace Design, with the m920, improve on those critical or subjective measures?
Regardless of the theoretical differences all those components make, what is the final impact on the sound (again, in comparison)? Thanks for the response!
Nov 23, 2016
GraceDesignLove
24
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
Typhoon859Since m920 was originally a studio use, there are no features such as tone coloring and glossing and picking up a specific range.
There is no coloring, it is clear and smooth. If it says so, you will uncover coarse recordings with a monitor like.
Since the headphone amplifier section is powerful drives , all low impedance IEM and high impedance classic headphone, and flat planer diaphragm type headphones.
May be m920 deliver equal or superior performance with any headphones.
Nov 23, 2016
Typhoon859
141
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
GraceDesignLoveExactly. This would be entirely the point with the Benchmark DAC1. I would've just assumed you guys, or at least someone otherwise, would be familiar with your competition. The DAC1 is accomplishes the same thing - exactly as you described. In short, given such minor potential differences, I would say even with this sort of "mass drop", it still isn't worth it. Unfortunately, I think this is the only logical conclusion to make.
I like Grace Design. I just wish you guys made more competitive products. There's no way the cost is that high to manufacture this.
Nov 23, 2016
GraceDesignLove
24
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
Typhoon859> There's no way the cost is that high to manufacture this.
I can not evaluate the cost of those who do not have the technology to make it.
All I can do is whether it is a product that plays good sound. I like the Grase Design m920 very much and I like it. That's all.
Nov 23, 2016
Typhoon859
141
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
GraceDesignLoveAlright then. Well, I guess I did say subjective points were okay...
Nov 23, 2016
nyandres
4
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
Typhoon859What was your question.... I commited to this purchase.... It looks like an incredible unit.
Nov 23, 2016
Typhoon859
141
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
nyandresIf you clicked on the full discussion, you'd see the comment right below, as I mentioned, but here it is: https://www.massdrop.com/buy/grace-design-m920/talk/581189
Nov 23, 2016
DJ15
12
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
Typhoon859'More competitive', 'that high', 'isn't worth it' compared to what? To Benchmark DAC2 HGC, Mytek Brooklyn, or to another similar product? All of those are a bit more expensive then the m920. Obviously the m920 employs some high quality hardware and then you pay a bit for the know-how of the particular designer. Does anyone question the awarded design of the m920? Or maybe its sound (or rather 'the absence of sound' being neutral and musical at the same time)?
Nov 23, 2016
Typhoon859
141
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
DJ15Or, you can actually have heard or listened to what I said. I'm seriously not going to argue most of your assertions as all you did was use whatever things you can find to quote from me to be able to vomit whatever things you had in your head.
I'll just comment on one thing: the Benchmark DAC1 is much less expensive, has become the industry standard in ways for exactly the kinds of reasons you described about the m920, indeed sounds completely clean, neutral, and transparent, and on paper it measures better. At such low distortion, the "musicality" element, especially given the intent/purpose of these pieces of gear in their design, is completely moot, hence, my original statements/questions which you quoted.
Nov 23, 2016
GraceDesignLove
24
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
Typhoon859You often quote Benchmark DAC 1 for comparison, but DAC 1 has already discontinued production and DAC1 is a product 10 years ago in the first place. Is it natural that it is cheaper than m920? Then Benchmark DAC 2 or DAC 3 should be compared and they are more expensive than m 920.
The exterior design of the Benchmark DACs is cheaper than the m 920. (IMO) I think that it is too expensive for that design.
Nov 23, 2016
DJ15
12
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
Typhoon859'Vomit'? Isn't this a bit ill-mannered? I expressed my opinion. You're entitled to yours. BTW, why don't you just buy the DAC1 and call it a day? And no, the musicality 'element' is probably not moot. Some report clean but sterile, uninvolving, harsh or just fatiguing sound with particular DACs, even with Benchmarks. I haven't heard the DAC1 which is (or was) indeed highly regarded but I'm positive the m920 is none of the above.
Nov 23, 2016
Typhoon859
141
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
GraceDesignLoveA difference in the box shouldn't be hundreds of dollars; the reason you'd want to make it nice is to attract people to the product, not charge more for it, especially since the important things are about the actual specs and sound. Also, it doesn't matter how old something is; it doesn't make it functionally worse. The measurements speak for themselves if that's the side of it we're talking about. It's still available on the market, so it's still an option for consumers to buy, and it still therefore ways heavily against other products. Also, the point of me quoting it is because I already have it and this wouldn't be an upgrade.
I didn't just quote the benchmark though. If you're looking or otherwise only need a USB connection, the ODAC + Objective2 combo would also weigh heavily against this. At ~$300, the measurements and the perceivable imprint on the sound is no less than the Grace Design m920. Point is, it's unreasonably inarguably expensive, I would assert that it's for no justifiable reason, and so are any similar products in this price range and above. This argument isn't for me; the company would just do better if it actually met this challenge and tried to market to a wider target to get manufacturing costs down.
Nov 23, 2016
Typhoon859
141
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
DJ15The issue wasn't your opinion. The issue was how you chose to isolate things I said for the purpose of simply asserting it, without actually carefully considering anything that's been said, effectively trying to undermine the legitimacy of my questions. That was inconsiderate and ill-conceived, hence reflected in my manner.
In any case, you're furthermore right about particular DAC's/amps. I would be the first to make those observations. But we're talking about these particular units, which aren't like that. The reason for those characteristics you mentioned has to do with odd-harmonic distortion which is what's present with solid state designs. If that was AT ALL an issue with the equipment we're discussing, we wouldn't be discussing it.
Also, as I mentioned in the above comment, I already own the DAC1, and my point was that for the price, I don't see why anyone would choose this over it, hence my submission that perhaps Grace Design should try to be more competitive with their costs.
Nov 23, 2016
GraceDesignLove
24
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
Typhoon859"Cost?", "Measurement?", I think these are important elements for industrial products, audio is a hobby, and our auditory sensation is not that simple.
As you like Benchmark DAC, we like the Grace Design m920. Cost and measurement will not matter much there.
You would prefer a vacuum tube amp that is distorted and should be disadvantageous in terms of cost.
Audio is a hobby.
Nov 23, 2016
DJ15
12
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
Typhoon859'This' won a design award. I believe there are certain areas where the m920 is superior to the DAC1 and I'm not talking DSD here. Take the implementation of the volume control as an example. Or the excellent USB implementation and the galvanic isolation of all digital inputs. And many more. Just read a bit more.
Nov 23, 2016
Typhoon859
141
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
GraceDesignLoveQuite the expensive hobby. And it's not that I "like" the Benchmark DAC1. On the part of "auditory sensation", it accomplishes exactly the same as it is intended for exactly the same. Given these devices' primary focus, if it didn't accomplish that, it wouldn't make them a very good product. Since they're both on nearly equal terms, with measurements actually being better with the Benchmark, cost becomes relevant. Hobby or not, regardless of the claim that is made, it is a completely ridiculous assertion to claim that cost is irrelevant, especially on the business side of things as that is the number one determining factor for consumers, "enthusiasts" or "hobbyists" or not.
Nov 23, 2016
Typhoon859
141
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
DJ15The design is beautiful, but neither I or anyone else would be listening to its design. They'd be listening to its output. At no point have I claimed that it by itself is inherently bad in any way. As a matter of fact, off the bat I made the claim that I actually really like Grace Design products. I like it precisely for reasons like you mention. Doesn't change the facts in the end.
Nov 23, 2016
GraceDesignLove
24
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
Typhoon859This is not a place to strictly compare m920 and other products. I do not want to do any more barren argument.
Nov 23, 2016
DJ15
12
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
Nov 23, 2016
Typhoon859
141
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
GraceDesignLoveI never forced your hand to do so.
Nov 23, 2016
Typhoon859
141
Nov 23, 2016
bookmark_border
DJ15Oh, alright. Well that's great!
Still, this doesn't really suggest anything further beyond what's already been discussed...
Nov 23, 2016
View Full Discussion
Related Products