Tube Buffer VS Tube DAC VS ? (let the fight begin)

Nothing wrong with a tube buffer but I like tube DACs, a buffer might help take some edge off but it's another component, another set of connections..etc
 
I've seen those Mavericks in a few threads mentioned. They aren't too expensive, how do you like it? and are you running it as preamp or just a DAC?

Love it. DO get the OPA627 and tube upgrades - big difference.

And I guess I use it as both, depending on what I'm listening to. Straight DAC off the HTPC (but with the tube buffer) and a limited pre with my analog turntable and external HD Radio tuner. With those, there's no DAC required as the analog out is fed straight out to the buffer and then the amp. I say limited because only control you have is source switching and line level.

PS - outstanding USB section on the Maverick. It limits out at 96/24, but IMHO, that outperforms the "hi def" coaxial and optical sonically.
 
Love it. DO get the OPA627 and tube upgrades - big difference.

And I guess I use it as both, depending on what I'm listening to. Straight DAC off the HTPC (but with the tube buffer) and a limited pre with my analog turntable and external HD Radio tuner. With those, there's no DAC required as the analog out is fed straight out to the buffer and then the amp. I say limited because only control you have is source switching and line level.

PS - outstanding USB section on the Maverick. It limits out at 96/24, but IMHO, that outperforms the "hi def" coaxial and optical sonically.
Good to know what OPA627 did you put into yours? Or did you buy the upgrade from them?
 
Last edited:
Maybe someone could clarify, but if you aren't using the USB input it sounds like you may not even be using it as a DAC at all; just an amplifier (or preamp).

The user's manual does not state this. It says its a tube DAC and a tube headphone amp.
 
The user's manual does not state this. It says its a tube DAC and a tube headphone amp.

Well...yeah, at a basic level.

But if using the analog/RCA inputs gvl says neither the tube nor the DAC function are actually being used.

To have the tube and the DAC function in the signal path the implication is the source must be digital into the USB connection.
 
Good to know what OPA627 did you put into yours? Or did you buy the upgrade from them?

Got them right from Maverick - there's a link when you buy.

The OPA627 is a single channel chip, so you need two to replace the OEM dual channel DAC. These come already mounted on the required adapter AND the DACs are socketed for us rollers, so they're a simple plug and play option. The upgrade is the brown board to the right of the tube. There's another one on the headphone section.

maverick-d1-we396a.jpg
 
Well...yeah, at a basic level.

But if using the analog/RCA inputs gvl says neither the tube nor the DAC function are actually being used.

To have the tube and the DAC function in the signal path the implication is the source must be digital into the USB connection.

Duh on my part. I can see me just being stupid on the DAC side, need digital input of course. But the way it reads the tube buffer may still be used for the headphone amp only "mode". Of course these translated manuals suck, this is one of the better ones I have seen though.
 
Last edited:
I listening mostly to CD's and I have run across some that will make your ears bleed. Typically these are re masters compressed to death but one exception is the Go Go's Beauty and the beat. I compared these when I was still in vinyl a few years back and the vinyl was not mixed that great to begin with. One cd version sounded absolutely wretched and down the road I found a different year release that was later than the other. That one sounded pretty much like the record so as you see quality has no bearing on release date. Before I buy anything new I research it on line to see if it sounds decent from the reviews. As for a tube buffer it wont help, I have a tube amp and if garbage goes in garbage comes out. Have you considered a equalizer, it could help but I would just find a better version of any disc you are after by doing a little research.
 
I listening mostly to CD's and I have run across some that will make your ears bleed. Typically these are re masters compressed to death but one exception is the Go Go's Beauty and the beat. I compared these when I was still in vinyl a few years back and the vinyl was not mixed that great to begin with. One cd version sounded absolutely wretched and down the road I found a different year release that was later than the other. That one sounded pretty much like the record so as you see quality has no bearing on release date. Before I buy anything new I research it on line to see if it sounds decent from the reviews. As for a tube buffer it wont help, I have a tube amp and if garbage goes in garbage comes out. Have you considered a equalizer, it could help but I would just find a better version of any disc you are after by doing a little research.

I've been looking into an equalizer to cut some of the harshness instead of a DAC or a buffer and think that might be a thing to try first as cheap EQ's are always floating around and if it works I can look for an upgrade EQ if need be or move on to something else.

And unfortunately the crappy quality CD's are of music that is rare and there is no other recordings so no finding better quality.
 
Duh on my part. I can see me just being stupid on the DAC side, need digital input of course. But the way it reads the tube buffer may still be used for the headphone amp only "mode". Of course these translated manuals suck, this is one of the better ones I have seen though.

It's easy to test. Connect an analog a source to the RCA inputs, remove the tube (while powered off), switch to LINE, fire it up and see if you can hear anything in headphones.
 
I noticed a pleasant difference between my Schitt Fulla and Aune T1 which has a tube buffer. Not better just warmer. But I like the way tubes sound compared to SS. I have also noticed that bad recordings just get more badder :cool: the further up the DAC food chain you go.

One thing I should have added and didn't think of it because I got a killer deal on the Aune. IMO at full retail the Aune is not worth the extra $150 over the Schitt
 
Here is my story. I used a simple tub-pre/headphone amp in my system for some time and liked the process of rolling the tubes experimenting to find the coloration that I liked and I thought it sounded pretty good with some particular sets of tubes. Then at an opportunity I picked a vintage Adcom GFP-565 pre and threw the tube-pre in the Adcom's processor loop, an A/B test quickly revealed the truth that the tube pre had a very noticeable low and high frequency roll offs and did nothing more than softening the sound removing some interesting details in the process while raising the noise floor at the same time. Heck, the Adcom has a gentle high-frequency filter intended to be used specifically for those harsh-sounding CDs, and I liked it better than the tube buffer in the processor loop. That was the last time I used that tube piece in my main setup but I had another hope for it as it's also (or rather mainly) an OTL headphone amp that likes to drive high-impedance headphones. I always wanted decent cans and pulled the trigger on HD6XX from Massrop last summer. Finally got them in December after several months of waiting, blew off the dust from the tube amp, fired it up and basically I'm not too happy with it again for similar reasons compared to the SS headphone amp that's built into the DAC. Mind you this is not the best piece of tube gear but neither are the tube buffers in the more or less budget friendly tube DACs and/or stand-alone buffers. I still like the idea of having it around and listening to it when I get bored with my main setup, but I really cooled off on tube sound, at least the budget type of tube sound.

Based on this I now believe a cleaner sounding DAC is a better investment than a tube buffer. Even a NOS DAC is better than a tube buffer, while soft-sounding and not as detailed in the treble it will at least not rob you of the low-and mid-range frequency details and it won't add noise.
 
Last edited:
I've been looking into an equalizer to cut some of the harshness instead of a DAC or a buffer and think that might be a thing to try first as cheap EQ's are always floating around and if it works I can look for an upgrade EQ if need be or move on to something else.

There's a reason those graphic EQs are always floating around on the cheap. You COULD maybe get lucky and find one that works for you, but I played that game for years with pretty craptacular results. If you do go with an EQ, keep an eye out for a Parametric EQ that allows you to dial in exactly on the problem areas. Also, don't expect to be able to do that by ear alone - that's an exercise in futility if you're trying for perfection.

Recently went with a DSP solution - Room EQ Wizard on my laptop, a calibrated mike, and the "convolution engine" that comes with jRiver Media Center. Run a few sweeps, click a button, and REW builds a PEQ curve that loads right in and automatically adjusts your digital music to EXACTLY what your room needs. The hardware isn't all that expensive either - I got a mixer, ADC, software, and the mike for maybe $200 total.

PS - you can print out the PEQ file and see exactly what's happening. I used that to pick out the "big lumps" and adjusted my parametric equalizer to handle all my analog sources. My PEQ only has nine filters per channel (including those on my McIntosh MQ104), but I'm happy with the results. Another option is adding a MiniDSP to the audio chain - that gives you the same level of detail the software solution does.

Anyway, gotta say, haven't had to tweak a setting in a couple years since going that route.
 
There's a reason those graphic EQs are always floating around on the cheap. You COULD maybe get lucky and find one that works for you, but I played that game for years with pretty craptacular results. If you do go with an EQ, keep an eye out for a Parametric EQ that allows you to dial in exactly on the problem areas. Also, don't expect to be able to do that by ear alone - that's an exercise in futility if you're trying for perfection.

Recently went with a DSP solution - Room EQ Wizard on my laptop, a calibrated mike, and the "convolution engine" that comes with jRiver Media Center. Run a few sweeps, click a button, and REW builds a PEQ curve that loads right in and automatically adjusts your digital music to EXACTLY what your room needs. The hardware isn't all that expensive either - I got a mixer, ADC, software, and the mike for maybe $200 total.

PS - you can print out the PEQ file and see exactly what's happening. I used that to pick out the "big lumps" and adjusted my parametric equalizer to handle all my analog sources. My PEQ only has nine filters per channel (including those on my McIntosh MQ104), but I'm happy with the results. Another option is adding a MiniDSP to the audio chain - that gives you the same level of detail the software solution does.

Anyway, gotta say, haven't had to tweak a setting in a couple years since going that route.

Well rooting through old boxes looking for something for the kid, I found a panasonic EQ I completely forgot I had and a pair or really high end RCA cords that I have no idea where they could have come from.

The EQ didn't do anything but muddy the sound and was a complete waste of time, but the new cables make a ton of difference. They aren't marked in any way but the ends are huge and gold and the cable is the size of my thumb.

I'm racking my brain to remember where they came from but at least I'm doing it listening terrible quality CD's without ear fatigue.
 
As far as tube buffers, aside from the Maverick D1, all of all the tube buffers I have tried-I find the ZMAN Audio Enhancer to clearly be one of the best. Quality parts-USA made. The power supply is stout-it will still play around 30 seconds after the power is turned off. The Sovitek stock tube isn't bad-but not the best. I tried new, vintage Mullards/Gold Lions-frankly the best tube was a 1951 Sylvania 12AX7 Tube out of Baldwin organ-go figure...
I demoed both Vincent Audio tube premps. Great units-but I guess I got hooked on the Zman paired with by Big Sky Audio upgraded Citation 21 (driving a Sig 1.5 amp). Seems to be the best of both worlds..SS and tube.
Regardless the Zman is a solid build-and will give a good idea of what one of the better tube buffers has to offer.
I know it kinda goes against the grain-that a tube buffer is a cheap alternative to a tube preamp. I wasn't opposed to the Vincent Audio preamps-just preferred the buffer setup. Not sure if it's "better" per se, but it just seems more musical-and a nice wide soundstage. As mentioned, go figure......
 
Last edited:
My personal experience with a couple of tube buffers says save the money you'll be spending on a gimmick and put it towards a better preamp. A buffer may or may not take the edge of the occasional digititis. It it does it's at the expense of the music in other areas; mushy bass, rolled off highs. I had the same result with a tubed dac. To me the music sounds better through the ss output of the tube dac.
Interesting, I have found the complete opposite to be true..
Particularly with the ZMAN. No need to upgrade the internals, like the Maverick...just find the right tube. Seems many are right, the vintage tubes seem to be the best sounding..
 
Back
Top Bottom