There's probably a reason why King-Wa only offered SPDIF on the original Ref 1 and only later offered USB as an option for the Ref 7. I remember early on when he even stated we didn't want to offer USB because he thought it sucked. But as a good businessman, he knew that having a USB implementation was crucial, so he implemented the VIA chip solution.

I'm sure he worked very hard to make sure that the USB solution was acceptable, but I bet he still thinks SPDIF is better. But it's not like he's going to tell you that.

As for I2S from the OR5 being better. No surprise there really. Steve is probably the type of person autistic or OCD enough (and I mean this in a good way) to test all sorts of combinations of parts to squeeze the best sound quality out of the darn thing.  With I2S and the OR5 unit's boutique clocks (the stock ones are probably better than the Master 7 clocks) proving the master word clocks and the Master 7 being the slave, we are probably eliminating the weakest areas of the Master 7. The PCM1704 chip is well known. The analog output design looks strong.

Pairing the OR5 with the Gungir yielded good results, but the Gungir USB didn't seem to be that horrible to begin with, or at least was appropriately selected for the price point and the capabilities of the rest of the DAC. XMOS->NativeX on the PWD1->2 was a pretty decent implementation, but still, it was nothing compared to the OR5, even though the NativeX thing had a "digital lens" FIFO buffer and all. I think most of these USB receiver chips probably have some of internal buffer anyways.

I do recall many folks saying a few years ago that the Ref 1 was very source dependent. I don't know if much has changed in the digital receiver portion, but perhaps the Master 7 is also very source dependent too.


Generally, this is how I would rate the setups overall, noting that there are specific tendencies with tonality, resolution, soundstage with each DAC at each point.

• Master 7 from EA OR5 I2S
• PWD1->2 fw2.03 from EA OR5 I2S
• <gap>
• PWD1->2 from internal USB XMOS->NativeX fw2.03
• Master 7 from EA OR5 SPDIF
• <gap>
• <gap>
• Master 7 internal USB

Yes.

However for those who prefer the NOS / pseudo-vinyl sound, I would have to say that the Master 7 is more of a "modern" sounding DAC. It's much more resolving and articulate than the PCM64/PCM1702/PCM1704 based DACs of yesteryear. I mean if you want an NOS or old-school PCM1704 DAC, just get one of those. Personally, I've never really liked them. There's a reason why I picked a Rega Planet ~15 years ago, even though I could have shelled out much more for a ladder DAC.

However, the Master 7 does retain those DACs' continousness of sound, their liquid feel, which many modern DACs do not do well. Even my current reference the PWD1->2 fw 2.03 does not seem to connect the dots together as well - there's still the slightest hint that discrete slices of data are being assembled together. Those who have known me well know that I've been looking for a DAC with modern technicalities (separation, clarity, layering, resolution, micro-dynamics etc.) and old school ladder DAC tone and liquidity. It may be that I've finally found it. Or at least a USB transport/DAC combination which will do it.

The tone of the Master 7 is most similar to the Lavry DA11 and Gungnir (two DACs I consider not to have treble issues and a fairly well balanced tonality). The PWD1->2's greatest weakness has always been a tendency toward a treble sheen at worst (USB fw 2.10), or a sort of dry and wooden presentation at best (OR5 fw 2.03). Sounds rendered from the Master 7 have a sense of body, which the PWD1->2 does not always have. Although not lacking bass at all, the PWD1->2 can render certain instruments on the thin side relative to the Master 7.

If I did another DAC comparison, I would probably re-score "Section I: Treble Rendering and Digititus" and downgrade the PWD by a partial grade:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao9CyUbvb2nFdHZ4RlZaQ2JwX1JsZG9vQlAtTmhvM2c#gid=0

I've only had time with a few recordings with the I2S on the Master 7, so it's hard to say which DAC does microdynamics and microdetail better. It's close enough now where I will need to pay serious attention to make a definitive determination. And it's certainly good enough to keep me happy. I should mention that the Master 7 does differentiate bass pitch and texture a tiny bit better than the PWD1->2. The main issue before the I2S on the Master 7 was the staging, separation, layering, imaging precision. As I've said, the internal USB sucked and the OR5->SPDIF a slight improvement. This may not be as strong an issue for headphones than it is for speakers.

Yeah, when I spoke to Steve at THE SHOW, he mentioned Linux appliance compatibility was a huge reason for going with XMOS. Knowing him and considering past history, he won't release the OR6 unless it's better as or as good in stock form to an upgraded OR5. I wouldn't necessarily recommend that people wait though. From my understanding, Steve has been pretty good with an upgrade path / program.

It's like why wait even a a few months or half year if your expensive DAC is cripped by bad USB? The OR6 is expected to be better than the OR5, but it's still in incremental upgrade; whereas the OR5 is a huge jump from the run-of-the-mill USB garbage. I can't imagine the last several months of my music listening without the OR5. In fact, when I returned S1's OR5 back to him, I refused to listen to my system, and only gradually and grudingly gave in to accepting the inferior performance of the PWD1->2 USB NativeX solution, which really isn't all that bad. Fortunately, Steve exceeded expectations and delivered my OR5 a few weeks before I expected it.

Someone should try this with the Sonore Rendu which has i2s and spdif outputs.

I wonder if Sonore would make one with single-ended i2s..