|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I've upgraded the power supplier from the cheap looking wall plug transformer by connect two of them in parrel (watch out for phase mismatch that will burn both transformers !) and noticed a drastic improvement in the soundstage (which the X-10D is infamous for blurring). Transients, percussion, "lips sounds", guitars and "air" improved noticeably. It's not a big bang but a definite and pleasant improvement on humble costs.I am too poor to buy the X-PSU that might have done the same thing. A good transformer will do magic for this piece of equipment ! (How evil MF is to ship a weak transformer to you and then ask you to buy their X-PSU !!!)
I apologize for creating such a heated argument, which might not have been the Asylum's intended purpose. This is my own experience with Musical Fedility that I'd like to share. I've them for almost 2 years.I've an X-Dac which I like much with my Marantz 67MkII SE,
an X-10D which is bad (without power modification) when placed infront of my tube amplifier (which has been damaged in an accident)
an A-2 amplifier that is NOT GOOD ENOUGH when compared to the tube amplifier which costed only half of the A-2,
and an X-TONE which I think is a good low-fi equipment that should be sold under another brand in another market. It is taken off line shortly after purchase.However, the X-10D greatly improves for the A-2, which, to me, is still not worth the money !!!
I use Teflon + Silver interconnects just long enough (a few inches) to do the job. The digital link was a Monster 1000D.
I think the transformer tweak will improve the sound stage that it will definitely mess up when you use the weak transformer. As a one-step upgrade, this is a reasonable equipment for people with very tight budget like me if you are VERY careful about cables. Yet from hindsignt I don't think one will have a one-step upgrade after you found that things can be improved. The whole chain of things I eventually end up buying is worth more than a better sounding CD player !
Merry Christmas
The X-10D is the worst product, from a company, which perpetually misleads consumers, by presenting deceptive information and poor quality products.The X-10D does not meet it's own (mediocre) specifications. It has no place in a decent hi fi system. Loaded with a modest impedance (600 Ohms), an X-10D will typically exhibit distortion levels too high for most test equipment to resolve (my estimate: > 30% THD). Yes, that's correct, THIRTY PERCENT! It provides no useful amount of gain (about 1.5dB), a very poor ouput impedance and average S/N figures. In short: The only reason for this product to exist, is to distort a musical signal. Hardly good choice for a person attempting to build an accurate (HI FI) system.
This is not the only example, of a product, which does not meet it's own specs, from Musical Fidelity. Some of their early Class A power amps, delivered a mere 10% of the advertised Class A power. Worse, circuitry was so poorly thought out, that channel to channel Class A power was easily 50% different. Some of their most recent products, are based on a component which has been obsolete for several decades (Nuvistor's). This places any purchasers in an invidious position, if that component fails and there is no further supply available.
Trevor
The X-10D is not about supplying gain. The input/output imedence is actually extremely good- that is the purpose of it. Have you actually measured these criteria yourself?
As for the Nuvistor, MF have kept enough spares for every single amp produced.
You obviously dont like MF, but I cant see why.Borris.
Borris>
The X-10D is not about supplying gain. The input/output imedence is actually extremely good- that is the purpose of it. Have you actually measured these criteria yourself?Trevor>
Yes, I have measured the X-10D (original + new tubes fitted) extensively. It cannot meet it's published specifications. It is quoted to have an output impedance of 200 Ohms (not especially low). When loaded with an impedance of less than 1,000 Ohms, the device exhibits high orders of distortion. At 600 Ohms (industry standard), the distortion is too high for my equipment to resolve, accurately. Examination of 'scope traces, is all I am able to do. The distortion is extremely asymetric, in nature. Since it supplies no useful gain, nor is it's output impedance low enough to be of any use, then the device, itself, serves no purpose, other than to distort the signal. It has no place in any high quality audio system. The X-10D does not meet any of it's other published data, either. However, it is the output impedance and associated distortion products, which concerns me more than any of the other figures (which are pretty much beyond the limits of audibility, anyway).Borris>
As for the Nuvistor, MF have kept enough spares for every single amp produced.Trevor>
MF have kept ONE spare, for each device produced. One only. After that, there will be no more produced, ever. If MF goes belly up (and if they continue producing crap like the X-10D, they may well do so), then where will purchasers of the Nuvista be? What hope will they have? What if more Nuvistors are consumed, than anticipated?Borris>
You obviously dont like MF, but I cant see why.Trevor>
Because I have worked on many MF products. I have listened to many. They do not 'cut it'. Construction, specifications and design, are all below average. Sound quality, being subjective, is in the ear of the beholder. I have heard the best, that MF produce. It does nothing to excite me. I've seen CD players, from MF, which are IDENTICAL to a standard Philips unit, albeit with a hefty price tag. Channel to channel mismatches, which are unacceptable. Poor quality construction techniques, etc, etc.Trevor
Your comments remind me of a Daniels Audio CD player I once had. I opened it up and there is no way Butch Daniels did all the mods he claims. Yet was charging an ungodly amount of money, which yours truly stupidly paid, for a very cheap Phillips player.
Yup. This is one part of audio, which really annoys me. And another excellent reason for comparing certain prodcuts, with others. CD players are possibly the worst (or best, depending on your point of view) example, since very few small companies can actually do a lot more other than modding existing players (which is not a bad thing in itself). I recall working on a Micromega, back in the late 80's. I was horrified to see a bog standard Philips machine (top line cast alloy transport, though)inside a fancy case. After servicing, I compared it to a Marantz CD94 (used as a transport). Yep, you guessed it: Indentical to the Marantz, albeit at a greatly inflated price. I must say, though, I was shocked at what I found with the Audio Alchemy. I expected more from this company.Trevor
Since when is consumer audio gear to be characterised for
distortion into 600 Ohms? A 600 Ohms load may be a de-facto
standard in pro audio, but it is and remains a dumb standard,
originating from the days of early telephone.Yes, the X-10D is a distortion generator, made for people
who think they can't be happy with untweaked CD-sound.So what?
When a product is rated to possess an output impedance of 200 Ohms, it is entirely reasonbale to expect distortion free performance, into load impedances of 600 Ohms, or less. Many consumers are being duped into purchasing a device, which they think may assist with driving long RCA cables. As I have stated previously, my major complaint is with MF's constant inability to correctly, or honestly specify their equipment.Trevor
Trevor, you are mistaken here. This product is most likely a cathode follower that acts like a hi Z buffer for some products, and produces mostly 2'nd harmonic when it distorts. It is NOT designed for 600 loading. You should use a 5K load as worst case, as this is an appropriate minimum load for consumer audio. I'm excluding some high end weird loads such as some Roland products, as they are not designed with this product in mind. At first, I was really surprised how you could find 30% distortion in any audio product. However, when you stated that you used a 600 ohm load, it was obvious. I am not going to deny that this MF product is mostly an 'effects' box, that makes some equipment sound better because it is hi Z at the input, and it 'sweetens' the sound by adding a measurable amount of 2'nd harmonic distortion. Anthony Michaelson is not a purist audiophile, and sometimes he likes to make unconventional products that sound interesting, rather than accurate. Anthony M. is a classical musician by training and has a great sense of style in advertising that has made him a millionaire in the last 20 years, and a successful audio company in Great Britain. I have to compete with him, but I am not going to let criticism of this product go unchallenged, even if Anthony does tend to 'puff' his products excessively in his sales brochures.
My citicism of this and other MF products lies mostly with the misleading specifications, provided. If they cannot (or will not) accurately specify a product, then that fact should be made known. The product is quoted as possessing a 200 Ohm output impedance. Clearly it does not. As a corrollary to this, I have measured many, many tube preamps, using Cathode follower outputs. None deliver distortion which even remotely approaches the levels of the X-10D. If a consumer expects the X10D to possess a 200 Ohm output Z, then connects it to long, highly capacitive cables, problems will ensue. If MF, had quoted the product as possessing a (say) 5kOhm O/P Z, then I would have little to say against the product, except that it is merely a distortion generator.Other blunders, from this company include:
**A1 ampflifier. Purported to be 20 Watts Class A, but measured more like 0.75 Watts to 2.5 Watts Class A, in typical examples. Worse, those different Class A levels were often found in THE SAME AMP! All in all, not a bad sounding product (for the money). Why not specify it accurately and honestly? Construction of this thing was another matter. Horizontal (nearly useless) heatsinking, amateurish Collector connections, poor choice of passives, etc, etc.
**The P370 Amplifier. Purported to be 185 Watts Class A (per cahnnel). Enough heatsinking for about 15 Watts, max. Guess what? Actual Class A power was about 12 Watts, in the two of the three samples, I have seen. The third sample suffered such severe damage, in both channels, no meaningful measurements could be taken. Not a bad basis for a decent amp, though. Plenty of filter caps and adequate power transformers.
**E600 CD player. INDENTICAL to a Marantz model (can't recall the model #. Probably a CD52), but sold at about 3 times the price of the Marantz. I hasten to add, that MF is not the only company guilty of this particular 'crime'. One of the Audio Alchemy models was a standard, budget model Sony, albeit in a fancy case, but with the addition of a US$5.00 line filter. No other alterations were in evidence. Naturally, the cost of the AA model was several hundred Dollars more expensive than the Sony.
**The Nuvistor based products. Time well tell, if I am right, or wrong, about these things.Trevor
I owned the A1 amp for about 10 years, and it performed flawlessly. As for its specs, it was tested by The Gramophone not once but twice, and that venerable audio magazine raved about it. It was in their annual list of top products for many years. Are we now to believe that The Gramophone would consistently and repeatedly overlook the fact that the amp didn't meet its specs, on the say so of some Webatic?
Please re-read my post. My criticism of the A1, relates to:
It's construction qualities.
It's inability to meet it's published (Class A) power ratings.
Choice of some materials and components.It's sound qaulity, for it's time was acceptable.
I have little interest in what some hack writer has to say about any particular product. Few audio writers have any qualifications, worth bothering with. Most are more concerned with maintaining the flow of advertising revenue, rather than offering honest, useful advice.
Trevor
Trevor, I agree that misleading advertising is not good for the audio community. My greatest concern is your testing this unit with a 600 ohm load. In my general experience, the only tube stage that I have used that had a specified 600 load, used a push-pull output and a step-down transformer at the output. A cathode follower can have a lowish output impedance, without being able to drive 600 ohms. The output impedance is derived from the transconductance of the tube, not its peak operating current. For example, the 6CW4 nuvistor has a G(m) of almost 10,000 uMHO's and this converts to about 100 ohms output impedance, but it has a max current of only 7.6ma. This current isn't enough to drive a 600 ohm load properly. Many feedback circuits can also have a low output impedance, yet not drive 600 ohms properly. For example, many IC's won't drive 600 ohms very well, but can have output impedances below 10 ohms (with negative feedback).
Words for me to think about, John. I must say, that I am not entirely happy with this issue, but what you say is certainly correct.Trevor
Trevor, if I see Anthony M. at the CES, I will shake him very warmly about the throat, and tell him of your complaint. ;-) I agree that he gets out-of-hand with advertising hype. Happy Holidays!
Distortion or no distortion who cares as long as it sounds right to me.
Its all in the Ears.
It is not reasonable to expect decent distortion figures from
cheap tube-based consumer gear driving 600 Ohms. In addition,
it is not realistic as that load simply does not appear
in consumer systems, bar the odd Rowland power amp or
whatever.Not defending the X-10D. Again, it belongs firmly in the
category 'fuzzboxes and other guitar effects' :-)And not defending MF either. In some respects they may still
be in their cottage-industry period.
It's a cultural issue. Look at British cars ...
Are you slagging British cars? I hope not cos they beat US ones in all areas bar size.
then what the heck is it do?Just curious.
Dave
Hiit is not supposed to supply gain. The aim of the X-10D is to provide a good input impedance for the CD player to drive, and a good output impedence for the preamp. I think. There may be more to it than that, but it is a common misconception that it is to provide gain.
The X-10D is a distortion generator. It cannot serve any other purpose.Trevor
BTW those Rage Audio products are Ugly. The designer should be sent
to design school.
Look, you may be correct in certainpoints here, but to state "it cannot serve any other purpose' is an odd thing to say.
I have owned one of these since it was first produced, bought it with a no quibble full refund option and have found it very useful in certain equipment.
What I hear being stated here is a version of the old minimum interference with the signal produces the best sound arguement.
I would call that spurious at best.
Lets first ask why there is this outpouring of hatred?
In my system of the time, the effect was to produce a deeper, slightly warmer bass and a sweeter top. I wasn't going to complain.
Were my ears lying to me to betray the holy grail of pure hifi?
This is nonsense.
It seems that Trevor has the problem, not Musical Fidelity. I presume all the people who like Musical Fidelity equipment are either wrong (what would that mean?) or, in the case of reviewers, bribed (?).
No wonder trevor is connected to something called Rage Audio.
Rage far too loudly if you ask me.
Might I ask why you have this hatred of MF?
Me thinks the lady protesteth too much.....
Dave>
Look, you may be correct in certainpoints here, but to state "it cannot serve any other purpose' is an odd thing to say.Trevor>
Not at all. The device provides no improvement, of any paramaters, over a modest source device. If the X-10D provided a genuinely low output impedance, then it would have a place, in SOME systems. As it is, it's only purpose, can be that of introducing distortion.Dave>
I have owned one of these since it was first produced, bought it with a no quibble full refund option and have found it very useful in certain equipment.Trevor>
That it may mask some faults, in some systems, is undeniable. Better that the same amount of cash be placed into better equipment, in the first place.Dave>
What I hear being stated here is a version of the old minimum interference with the signal produces the best sound arguement.Trevor>
Yes and, no. I am all for minimisation of signal paths, PROVIDED certain basic characteristics are not compromised. A high(ish) output impedance, can lead to all sorts of unfortunate drawbacks.Dave>
I would call that spurious at best.Trevor>
I call it subjective and objective observation. Don't forget: I have used one of these things, at length. It is a complete waste of time and money.Dave>
Lets first ask why there is this outpouring of hatred?Trevor>
The high end industry has a severe credibility problem, with mainstream engineers and the general public. It is badly specc'd products, like the X-10D, which cause this reaction. Far better to place products, such as the X-10D into their correct perpective (ie: Distortion generators), rather than claim specifications, which they are incapable of supporting. If a manufacturer lists specific specs, then that product should meet those specs (don'cha think?). If it does not, then it should be exposed, the manufactuer should issue a recall, amend it's spec sheets, whatever. Lies are lies, regardless of what you, or anyone else thinks of the product. There are a great many products, in the high end industry, which have very poor specs (SET amps, for one group), however, few manufacturers mislead their customers, to the degree that MF does. The release of the Nuvistor based amplifiers (ordinary sounding IMO) tore it for me. I could not believe the total disregard for customers, with these products. Nuvistors are obsolete devices. They will never be manufactured again. Talk to Myles. Ask him how long Nuvistors last. Then tell me how smart these products are.Dave>
In my system of the time, the effect was to produce a deeper, slightly warmer bass and a sweeter top. I wasn't going to complain.
Were my ears lying to me to betray the holy grail of pure hifi?Trevor>
Nope, it is more likely that the X-10D was veiling the source. This has been my point, all along.Dave>
This is nonsense.
It seems that Trevor has the problem, not Musical Fidelity. I presume all the people who like Musical Fidelity equipment are either wrong (what would that mean?) or, in the case of reviewers, bribed (?).Trevor>
Reviewers may, or may not have been bribed. I don't know. I do know that there are a great many incompetent reviewers, out there. They do not employ anything resembling a scientific approach, nor are they always honest. Then again, there are a few good ones. I suspect the good ones have not bothered reviewing an X-10D.Dave>
No wonder trevor is connected to something called Rage Audio.
Rage far too loudly if you ask me.Trevor>
Ah, if all else fails, let's try a personal attack. I'll let it slide. Please concentrate on facts, in future.Dave>
Might I ask why you have this hatred of MF?
Me thinks the lady protesteth too much.....Trevor>
Think what you wish. I see people falling for the advertising hooks, of this company. I find it offensive, that in high end audio, such lies are accepted. If you bought a Honda, rated at 120HP, then later found that it delivered (say) 80HP, would you be annoyed? Of course you would. Like a motor vehicle, a hi fi product, should meet it's published specs. Nothing less, is acceptable. There are many products, which are my competition, which DO meet their basic specs. It is companies, like Musical Fidelity, which are damaging the perception and faith, in high end audio.Trevor
I think your reply confirms what I said.
"the high end has a severe problem .... with the general public".
Ok.Really the spec is not the dog, it is the tail and should not wag the dog.
I hardly ever pay any attention to specs other than the most cursory glance.
I prefer to listen to a hifi component.
Equally, why be bothered by the "size" of an engine? Better to drive/ride the thing and see how it works.
Again you tell me my ears are lying because your figures say something else. Frankly, your figures did not buy the equipment nor listen to music through it.
When I hear deeper bass and sweeter extended top, you tell me I'm actually hearing less.
The original system it went in was ... mmmm Arcam Alpha CD player, Exposure xx amplifier and Epos 14 speakers.
Perhaps not your definition of high end, but I do not think the x10d was designed for Martin Logan.
In fact, perhaps not only is the tail wagging your dog, but it is barking up the wrong tree.
It reminds me of the old joke, where a tourist is lost in Ireland and asks a local how to get to Kinsale. "I wouldn't start from here." Is the reply.
Unfortunately most people will not scrap a whole system in order not to add something "sinful" such as a tonal control, or x10d.
To most people the system is at the service of the music.
I suggest you stay with your high end equipment and leave others to buy more music. Music is the point of all this, isn't it?
Dave>
Really the spec is not the dog, it is the tail and should not wag the dog.
I hardly ever pay any attention to specs other than the most cursory glance.Trevor>
As do I (mostly), when I am subjectively evaluating equipment. However, when a device lands on my bench, from a client, then objectivism rules. I cannot allow my personal preferences interfere with test proceedures and objective evaluations. That would be very foolish. My preferences may not coincide with theirs.Dave>
I prefer to listen to a hifi component.Trevor>
Sure, but if you buy a component, based on it's claimed specs (to drive long, highly capacitive cables, f'rinstance) and it does not even come remotely close to those specs, then you have been conned. The specs should be amended.Dave>
Equally, why be bothered by the "size" of an engine? Better to drive/ride the thing and see how it works.Trevor>
Because the size of the engine may valuable for thos who carry more than one person (the usual number, during a test drive), or perhaps the vehicle will be required to tow a heavy load, oull out stumps, etc, etc. In these cases, a simple test drive is not enough. Comprehensive specs may vital. Likewise, the output impedance of the X-10D, should be accurately specc'd.Dave>
Again you tell me my ears are lying because your figures say something else. Frankly, your figures did not buy the equipment nor listen to music through it.Trevor>
Not at all. I have listened to a lot of equipment, over many years, which sounds very pleasant. It ain't real, but it is nice. If you think through the simple logic, of the X-10D, then you will realise that you like the sound of the X-10D. You don't like the sound of the music as recorded by the engineer, or performance of your CD player. IF the X-10D had a low output impedance (as it is claimed), then it MAY have some useful purpose, in improving the sound of some systems.Dave>
When I hear deeper bass and sweeter extended top, you tell me I'm actually hearing less.Trevor>
Not at all. You are certianly hearing more. You are hearing the original music (less what is removed by the X-10D) PLUS the distrotion of the X-10D. I contend that the X-10D adds far more than it removes.Dave>
The original system it went in was ... mmmm Arcam Alpha CD player, Exposure xx amplifier and Epos 14 speakers.
Perhaps not your definition of high end, but I do not think the x10d was designed for Martin Logan.Trevor>
Nice products, all. IN fact, all those products are accurately specc'd by their respective manufacturers.Dave>
In fact, perhaps not only is the tail wagging your dog, but it is barking up the wrong tree.
It reminds me of the old joke, where a tourist is lost in Ireland and asks a local how to get to Kinsale. "I wouldn't start from here." Is the reply.
Unfortunately most people will not scrap a whole system in order not to add something "sinful" such as a tonal control, or x10d.
To most people the system is at the service of the music.
I suggest you stay with your high end equipment and leave others to buy more music. Music is the point of all this, isn't it?Trevor>
Sure, which is why I expose myself to live, unamplified music as regularly as I can. The X-10D removes me, one more stage from that live music 'feel'.
Trevor
Ok, to quote you again .... "you don't like the sound of the music as recorded by the engineer or the sound of your CD player".
I have no interest in the sound the engineer likes or the "sound" of my CD player. These are only the means of getting at some music.
Just about everyone else here seems to think an x10d improves their enjoyment of music.
I don't really expect listening to recordings of music to be the same experience as a live music experience. Its a different thing .... mmm no queues for drinks and toilets at my house, no shouting and people stepping on your feet or uncomfortable seats or bodysearches and a million different things.
The essential of live music is the creation of something from nothing in front of you.
This is not what happens when you play a record.
Much music recorded in the past 40 years cannot exist "live". Was it not John Cage who first suggested using the studio as another instrument?
Sorry, I'm beginning to ramble off the point.
In my opinion, valuing the purity of the recording is like valuing your virginity....... you're still missing out on the fuck.
In High End audio. I have the Musical Fidelity X24K (which made tremendous improvements, BTW), and in a few months I will likely spring for the XPSU power supply and the XLP phono stage. I have seldom heard a discouraging word about MF, so it is surprising to see the polemic above.
I'm with you Bill.
I have various pieces of MF kit in different systems, .... x10d, x24k, x-pre, xa50 x-psu, x phew!!!!
I have found them all to be very good buys (if anyone from MF is reading this and wants to send me freebies, please do so!).
The x-psu makes a big difference to the other stuff.
When I added one to a system where the only MF kit was a x-10d, it was like the system had worked out at the gym every day for 6 months, just much more muscular. And lean.
I think there is something else going on here with spewing out of venom.
Administrator please note.
Of course you can get better performance from all x series with a few mechanical tweaks, but that is another story........
ive got the x10d which ive been using for about 3 maybe 4 months..everytime i hear something disparaging about it, i unhook the kit from the rest of my chain..invariably after a couple of days, i put it back..frankly, i think its a great piece of work...notwithstanding what some folks feel about it .its playing beautiful music as i hammer this out..and ive got the x-cans which i use with my sennheiser hd600s....i thought i had attained nirvana when i first plugged the hd600s into my kit but when the x-cans came along...the feeling was simply out of this world..and im coming real close to getting the x-24k..and maybe the xray cdp..but then id rather use the funds to get the psu if im thinking of the x-24k..and i think musical fidelity is a great company, again notwithstanding what some folks might have to say about them..to each his/her own..arent we all fond of telling each other..ultimately let your ears decide...??
just my 2.5 cents worth of rambling..
cheers
MiKeY
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: