840C and MHDT Havana

Thanks for the responses.

I was quite surprised at the description of the Audio Mirror being more dynamic - I would have thought that the 840C would have better dynmamics (than the NOS AM). Similarly surprised with there being less fatigue. That said, I have read some 840C observations about it having excellent bass depth, but midbass and mids being a little soft (attack/"thwack" factor).

How do you guys find the smoothness of the two DACs? I listen to a lot of female vocal so this is a crucial area which is often not quite cracked.

Mapman - the pros of the Havana are indeed creeping up. I suppose the only concerns I have are of too soft a bass or HF...that is, both extremes being rolled it (giving too romantic a sound). From what you say though, tube rolling should hopefully alleviate that.

Cheers,
X

HF is not soft with the Paradisea even with stock GE tube.

LF, maybe or maybe not with the stock GE tube, depending on taste. LF leaves nothing to be desired with the Tung Sol.

Xenithon, I thought a few more comments on the 840C might help clarify my experience. With regard to the AM having better bass and dynamics than the 840C, it might be helpful to know those are primary strengths of the AM. So while the 840C is certainly not weak in those areas, it does not match the AM. For instance, listening to the Lopez-Cobos Mahler 3rd first movement with the AM, the tympani exhibits that jump or attack factor, to an extent not present in the 840C. However, one does not get far into the first movement before the 840C distinguishes itself above the AM in handling complex orchestral passages with far less congestion than the AM and also in spatial presentation. It could be argued that the 840C errs slightly on the side of politeness.

With regard to fatigue, my experience with the 840C parallels my experience with live performances. I was quite done after hearing live performances of the Mahler 7 and Shostakovich 4. No more music please, I was more than ready to go home. My point is that some listener fatigue is a natural consequence of the music, and is not artificially induced by electronics run amuck, where one has had enough after 20 minutes of relatively benign music. The 840C does not shorten my attention span. It parallels my experience with live music. This is the first digital source I've had for which that is true. For that reason alone, I will be cautious about replacing my 840C. After all, that's why I'm in this hobby. It's about the music.
A few comments on presentation of female vocal. Listening for instance, to Kathleen Battle singing the part of Gabriel in Haydn's Creation evokes the goose bumps. What a pure, sweet voice! Frederica von Stade singing Mahler's Songs of a Wayfarer is also emotionally moving. At the other extreme, I have a few recordings with problematic (ear piercing) soprano parts that have been rendered listenable, even enjoyable, on the 840C.

Finally, regarding the "sheen," it occurred to me that maybe the sheen is something not quite convincing about the considerable "air" in the 840C presentation. Maybe that is what bothered Dtc. The 840C is not a perfect player, and will not be everyone's cup of tea. No doubt, it will be a good player in some systems and not right for others. The only way to know for sure is to arrange for a long audition in your system.

Hi all and thanks for the responses. Brownsfan - thanks for that very detailed and descriptive write-up!

I was fortunate enough to have an opportunity to try out the 840C at home this weekend....the private seller was kind enough to entrust the player to me to help with the decision.

I tried it playing CD's, but primarily used its optical input with my Macbook and lossless files (that is how I generally listen to music). As an aside, I tried switching between 16/44.1, 24/44.1, and 24/96 output from the Mac but did not really detect any difference....the soundstage did seem to open up a bit moving from 16- to 24-bit (irrespective of sample rate)... though I concede that may have been placebo.

It was a bit of an enigma to be honest. I'll break down what I heard in each of the three major frequency spectrums:
- high frequencies were very extended and open. Whilst I did not find them overly bright or forward, there is indeed something in their presentation which makes them a little unnatural. It was not etched, nor sibilant, but had perhaps too much "excitement" which could irritate my ears. This was particularly evident with new age music which has lots of layering of various instruments. Delineation was excellent though.
- midrange was good; not great. As above, the delineation, detail and separation was excellent. I found the soundstage a little odd....it was wide and open, but it seemed as if there wasn't sufficient music to occupy that vast space. I would not say it had a hollow sound, but perhaps a little distant. I found this especially with vocal music (male and female alike) where I am more used to an intimate presentation; the vocalist sounding closer to me and more alive and the instruments painting the background of the canvas. The 840C had that with a few recordings (which have particularly intimately miked vocals); but for the majority of them the vocals and instruments were in the same acoustic plane. One could say that the soundstage was not deep....at least not commensurate with its width?
- bass...also a bit of an odd one. The very low frequencies are amongst the best I have heard. Deep, taut, excellent sustain and delay, with no overhang or thinness. However, the slightly higher bass frequncies (midbass?) were missing something. I think it was some punch which I was used to (e.g., midrange pitched Japanese drums)...attack was a little soft. In addition, this frequency range was somewhat missing a little texture.

Please note, these are what you could call prelimenary finding, having had two days thus far with the 840C. It does some things extremely well; other areas are less accomplished - as can be expected. I am not certain if the areas in which it compromises are the areas in which I myself can compromise...that is, if the 840C is something I can live with long term.

I sure am itching as to how the Havana compares, especially in the areas I find the 840C a little wanting (soundstage depth; midbass attack and texture, upper frequency control).

Cheers for now,
X

Oh, and of course I also ponder how the Havana stacks up in those areas where the 840C excelled (deep bass, separation/delineation etc.)