|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.87.203.85
Music Direct says it is their all-time best selling accessory. First off, I admit I do not follow the design wisdom of this product. Buying a unity gain tube device to fix and sweeten up the sound? Why not just get a tube pre or power amp? You can get a good used tube pre for $399 I'm sure. The MFTB is also a cathode follower design which is not a favorite of many sonic purists.
If in fact it emulates a true buffer by having a very high input impedance (>1 Megohm) with a very low output impedance (<10 ohms) and can be used to drive 600 ohm loads or multiple, typical amplifiers, then it makes sense. I don't think it can do either.
A good redesign by MF would include this capability with multiple outputs to drive amp arrays. Also the tube choice should be one which allows experimentation (rolling), such as a 12XX7 (probably a 12AT7 for a buffer app.) or 6922. MF's soldered in mini triode while a good performer is convemient only for them!
Also the wall wart and low voltage power supply is inexcusable at this price point. Running a tube off of 24 volts (starved plate) does not yield true tube character either.
Follow Ups:
...have great sonics with multiple inputs, and tube roll to my heart's content. Not sure what I'd gain with a tube buffer.
Quite frankly I find this whole thread is bizare. I really think some folks need to get a life...For one thing, I haven't read anyone here, and all seem to be bithching about this product, who have or have had the latest MF X10v3 with MF PSU, which is manditory to really let it function in all it's glory, installed in their systems.
This is like endlistly trying to describe a certain food, that you have never bothered tasting. I really is border line madness...
If anyone in this blog really wants to be taken seriously, I suggest you find a way a actually listen to one of these units. Then and only then, will you come off as credible...
And no, listening to the previous version, which is widley know to not being nearly as good as the current one, doesn't count...
If I understand it correctly, a buffer 1) provides a lower output impedance, 2) helps drive long interconnects, 3) adds some "tuby-ness". The original MF unit was a appealing in concept, but in practice did more masking than improving. Ims, truncated the frequency extremes, homogenized details and added a layer of veiling.I think trying to solve the problem without one is best, but here are several other companies that may have produced a better mousetrap.
1. Doc Bs’ “buff” can be used in place of vs after a cd player's op stage or with a passive preamp http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=bottlehead&n=115557&highlight=a+Buff+between+a+CD&r=&session=
2. Burdson buffer http://www.sixmoons.com/audioreviews/burson/buffer.html
3. Eastern Electric Vacuum Tube BBA http://www.morningstaraudio.com/shop/item.asp?itemid=9
Let's see? I have the BBE, the original MF X-10D, an Audio Alchemy Dac-in-the-Box, an A.Alchemy "Digital Transmission Interface" (jitter reducer), a Macro Vision killer, various antenna/cable boosters/filters/hum killers, and a 5-band Audio Control Equalizer circa 1979 or so. Probably others I can't think of right now.(And I do use a 2nd X-10D in the weekend place. Pioneer 25 CD changer optical-out to a Dac-in-the-Box to the X-10D, to the preamp.)
But I don't have a $30K system either!Mine worked very well, once I DIYed a good power supply. Haven't tweaked it otherwise from the original, except to DIY tube dampers. But the tubes are NOT the original 6922s either, they're Teslas, one of 3 non-original sets that I bought with this unit used.
It sits between my CDP and my amp, now between the CDP and the outboard DAC.
FWIW, I have NOT experienced the claimed HF rolloff nor bass reduction of any kind. It does make for a smoother midrange and it does NOT add any appreciable gain. So all this claimed detrimental stuff is not in my experience in my modest rig.
Now I will say that I tried removing it with my new DAC and did not like the sound that resulted. It was thin and not more detailed in any way than with the X10d in place. So back it went.
I'm satisfied for now. Is it an impedance matcher? Probably. Whatever else it does, it's an improvement and not one that's merely euphonius, however those seeking to increase their detail would not find this unit adds anything at all in that regard. Neither does it seem to detract anything IME.
This and the earlier X10-D are fine if you:(i) have a 1985-95 multibit cdp that is typically harsh and grainy in the treble but otherwise produces acceptable sonics.
(ii) have an amp input that is not optimally loaded for the output of your cdp.
(iii) can't afford to upgrade both cdp and amp at this time.
When you can afford the necessary upgrades the tube buffer becomes redundant and can be gracefully retired, or sold to another impecunious starter. I don't think it was ever designed to fit into a modern high-end system and I'm not surprised to hear that it may have deleterious effects therein.
I picked up an original X10d on the used market & it did a decent job while was stuck with a junky preamp for a while after my NYAL Moscode Minuet self immolated. Once I found a nice replacement, the X10d went back on the market to give someone else a bit of short term joy.
.......and while at first, it seems to really "improve" the sound from CD's, after extended listening, it is revealed that deep bass is curtailed and the highs are rolled off but the midrange is sure magical.I upgraded to the high current PS(which is just a transformer) and this improved the overall solidity but did not mitigate the original problems as noted above.
I even went so far as to upgrade the input/ouput RCA jacks, and add an additional Earth GND. between the chassis and the HC PS chassis, added tube dampening rings, directly connected the PS output transformer to the X-10D PCB and while all these did incrementally improve the sound, it did not turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.
I though about upgrading all the caps but gave up and it sits in my collection of electronics.
I can't speak to the X-10V3 unit but it is a good unit for a mid-fi system especially if the CD player is low budget but inserting one into a high resolution system really shows it's flaws.
Cheers,
Why bolt-on yet another stage in an otherwise clean and transparent audio chain? You may as well just throw a towel over your speakers if a veiled sound is what you seek. ;-)In my opinion and experience slapping an unnecessary tube buffer stage into the chain might take some 'edge' off potentially harsh CD's or other music sources but the at the expense of transparency and dynamics. I would rather see a real gain stage in the front end in the form of a quality vacuum tube preamp.
In the case of CD players, I've compared one with a simple tube buffer stage and another that implemented a real tube gain stage off the DAC. The one with the simple buffer only softened and veiled the sound (compared to it's solid-state output section) while the one with a real tube gain stage was magical. (Cary CD 308T vs 303/300 CDPs. I love Cary products but it's no secret that I never cared much for the CD 303/300. I've written about it a lot here).
I think it's goofy and a waste of money. One could buy or build a euphonious distortion generator cheaper and/or better; consider the PAIA "Tubehead"! :-)I'd also spend that cash for a decent tube preamp...
all the best,
mrh
older version Quicksilver Line Stage preamps for around that price at Audiogon. As line stages go it's hard to beat for the price.
And it did the job on... what did I have st the time... A Cambridge CDP of some kind.
Richer, apparently deeper bass, certainly more bass weight.
Perhaps yours is not the best set up for it, Doggy.
I would suggest the X series power supply as the weedy one supplied is exactly that.
Music Direct, or someone, are offering it for $200US I think.
not the implementation.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: