This is a review of the Starting Point Systems DAC 3 and the AMB Gamma 2.

​Have you seen those 4K TVs? The ones where everything is crystal-clear, every little detail is there for you to see… those cityscapes, every little window, the sharp edges, the definition, the vibrant colours, the effects of OLED and HDR and so on… Now, go and take a look out of a window and if it’s filthy, open it first… Are the edges as defined, the colours as vibrant?
 
Which do you prefer? Reality, or virtual reality? Your preference will most likely dictate which of these DACS you’ll pip for.

The AMB Gamma 2 is a ‘compact, high performance DAC’ considered a high-end DAC with all sorts of inputs and outputs, including a headphone output, 2 in fact. The digital audio stream is upsampled to 24bit/96kHz by an asynchronous sample rate converter (ASRC) and then converted to analogue with Wolfson’s top of the range delta-sigma oversampling DAC chip. There’s a choice of 3 in this unit, the WM8740, WM8741 or WM8742. This has the WM8741 chip… Then an on-board, ultra-low jitter oscillator provides the master clock for the ASRC and DAC chips.
 
On paper, it’s pretty much unbeatable. Mine was originally made by ‘Mister X’ and bought second-hand, direct from USA. Once I’d paid the import duty it was a shade over £100 and £100 well spent.

​The Starting Point Systems DAC 3 takes a completely different approach to digital to analogue conversion to the AMB and indeed most DACS. It uses a Phillips TDA1543 DAC chip which is considered antique in some audio circles, partly because it is! This ‘vintage’ DAC has a cult following though and uses a 16 bit technology (remember that?) and is a ‘non-oversampling’ (NOS) DAC. Note: NOS is not to be confused with ‘new old stock’ NOS which you’ll also see in the audio world. In this DAC there is no op-amp – it’s straight through at 2V, battery powered and charged through the USB port or a 12-15V PSU (that you’ll have to source separately). So, there’s less processing. Battery = clean, stable voltage delivery and, get this, there’s one battery for the analogue circuitry and another for the digital and the ‘reclocker’ isn’t ‘asynchronous’ but ‘adaptive’. I bought mine new, direct from Christophe for a shade over £100 once p&p had been factored in. Since they’re sold on ebay, you may pay more or less for one.
 
They both have the same inputs but the DAC 3 only has RCA/phono outputs. 

So what’s it like to listen to them…
 
The AMB Gamma 2 is tighter, harder and brighter. It shines. It’s that 4K digital sound and a very good DAC and been in-situ for about half a decade in my system(s). Compared to other oversampling DACS it’s a more rounded sound but compared to the DAC 3… well that’s a different story.
 
I once fired up the AMB in a decent kitchen set-up and my friend’s house (my good friend, Mark Pollard to be precise, the slightly better of the two of us as DJing!) the system comprised a pair of AVI Neutron IIIs (on loan from me) powered by a TA2024 T-amp. His response. ‘#TMI’ we were hearing so much more information, he found it overbearing. To be honest, I do admire the detail this AMB can unearth but it can be to the point of being ‘clinical’.
 
So over to the Starting Point Systems silver box… On plugging in the DAC 3 via USB from a laptop, the first thing I noticed was it’s flat. This may sound like a bad thing, but hear me out… a computer screen is flat, a TV screen is flat, a window is flat. I suppose what I really mean is ‘neutral’. You don’t notice the screen or the window if it’s doing nothing. The DAC sounds like it’s just conveying music. It’s completely integrated and unfatiguing. It’s ‘music’, not ‘reformed music’, or ‘music HD’. And with that neutrality, emotion flows with atmosphere and a realistic soundstage.
 
I’ve listened to all sorts of music from AC/DC to ZZ Top, from opera to dubstep in the house and in the garage (home office).
 
The acid test…
 
It’s quite easy to immediately prefer the toy you’ve just bought, so I instilled my wife’s input. She has no axe to grind, well not with DACS anyway. In asking her opinion, all she knew was this means something to me, so I booked her in for a listening sesh, 1 track, 2 DACS. She chose the track: John Denver – Country Road.​
 
She immediately picked out the DAC 3 as the better sound and therefore the winner. No contest.
 
The acid test 2…
 
How do they compare through a pro-audio DJ system?

To cut a long story short, the DAC 3 is better. Took it up to 103dB. Annoyingly, my pro-controller uses Wolfson DACS, partly chosen due to their natural sound, albeit not the top Wolfson chip but not much further down the range. Unfortunately, it’s not possible, as far as I know, to DJ going straight through to the DAC 3, or the AMB for that matter, since you can’t monitor the sound output before broadcast. An interesting test though.
 
History… what lead me to buy it?
 
One upon half a decade ago, I bought the AMB Gamma 2. I was using CDs less and less and wanted to recreate the fabulous sound of my CD player using my laptop instead. My brother had the same AMB DAC and when compared to his Bryson DAC using the same Wolfson chipset was pretty much indistinguishable in sound. Hence I bought the AMB.
 
But, there’s always a niggle… My CD player sounded better than either of them. It’s an Audio Note CD 2. This uses NOS DAC fed through a valve output and it’s sublime. It was also greatly improved on the advice of Peter Q by getting a New Old Stock Siemens valve for it. Best £30 I’ve ever spend on HiFi! So move on to Audio Note’s current ‘budget’ DAC and it had the Phillips TDA1543 chip used in NOS orientation and fed through a valve output stage. So the search for an affordable DAC, i.e. within MY budget, began.
 
Living with the DACs:
 
System matching…
 
They both look like hand-built projects, which is pretty much what they are. They are well-built and punch well above their weight for the price you’ll pay for them but they won’t win any awards for pretty. If there’s an award for portability or value they’d be up there.
 
Both cope with MP3 bitrates down to 128Kbps without sounding awful. Most of mine are 320Kbps with some FLAC and other lossless file types.
 
The AMB deals with headphones well, the DAC 3 doesn’t.
 
The DAC 3 is a more intuitive ‘plug and play’ and less sensitive to voltage irregularity. I feel this is, in part, due to the batteries which act as a kind of smoothing circuit.
 
I think the AMB looks better, especially in black but you should really be listening to the units rather than looking at them.
 
I don’t know how long the batteries will last with their USB charging and discharging but since they’re standard NiMH 9V (MN1604, PP3) I’m sure replacement would be a doddle.
 
If money was no object:
 
Dream on… but if I had endless wads of cash, I’d love to hear the Audio Note DAC 0.1x. I have a sneaky suspicion it’d beat these two but it is 10x the price.
 
I’d get some TDL Studio 1 floor standers or PMCs as my main set up, I’d try out the AVI DM5 with a sub-woofer and I’d have  media server with more music on it, or at least put a high-capacity solid state HDD in my laptop.

(Since I wrote this article, I've actually bought a pair of TDL Studio 0.75 speakers. They are astonishingly good! I'll review them soon).
 
But, the money pot is small, hence opting for the Starting Point Systems DAC 3 in my quest for audio excellence at affordable prices.
 
I’ve yet to compare the DAC 3 with my Audio Note CD2. I have a feeling its ability to convey emotion behind the music will win but again that was £1000 worth of CD player and it just won’t do USB from my laptop, so convenience wins. So saying, I’ve not used my CD2 in 2 years!
 
Finally, I’d like to add that in certain circumstances my iPhone 6 Plus audio output is a more pleasant listen than the AMB. It’s nearer to the DAC 3 sound although it does have a somewhat rolled off top end. I’m lead to believe that iPhone use a separate DAC in their phones rather than an integrated one which may be unique and may explain their superior sound to most other mobile devices. So, if you have an iPhone, try it, you may be shocked at what it’s capable of. Chances are you’ll find it difficult to get hold of the AMB Gamma 2 if you fancy one but I’m led to believe the Cambridge Audio Dacmagic Plus uses the same WM chipset and sounds similar.
 
If I had to keep just one of the DACs, I’d keep the Starting Point Systems DAC 3 it really is rather good. Time will tell if I sell the AMB, but I think I’m keeping both… for now.
 
Systems used for testing:
 
Listening room:
 
Creek OBH-12 passive pre
TA2024 Helder circuit board T-amp x2 in bi-amp configuration, 12V 5A PSU
TNT-audio inspired ‘FFRC’ speaker cable
Shark silver interconnects with WBT terminals
Acoustic Energy AE1 MK2 with dedicated stands
Yamaha subwoofer
Virtual DJ Pro 7 software to USB from laptop for music files and iTunes.
 
Lounge:
 
Creek OBH-22 passive pre
TA2024 Helder circuit board T-amp, 12V 3A PSU
Monitor Audio 7 speakers
Atecama SE25 stands
Yamaha subwoofer
FFRC speaker cables
Shark silver interconnects with WBT terminals

I’ve decided to put my own review of these speakers online, largely since it’s impossible to find anything on them on the interweb or even in my curly-cornered vintage What HiFi collection, which, if complete would actually have a review of the speakers. I have no idea if it’s favourable.
 
I’m a fan of tiny speakers attempting to do real HiFi. There’s a trend toward more discreet HiFi, where in bygone days the speakers were part of the furniture do to their size. The laws of physics dictate that the smaller the speaker the smaller the sound, but the less space they take up in our shrinking living environment, where space is a premium. The only thing that’s got bigger is the TV, but since they’re now a mere few cm thick despite being the size of a mural they can be hung on the wall. There’s another reason I like small speakers… I can buy a few pairs and stash them without disturbing the domestic status quo.

Due to its density, metal cabinets were at least the choice of a few decades ago where you could get a speaker about the size of a brick that sounded pretty good, some of which commanded real HiFi prices such as the Technics SB-F1 (£220 back in 1978) in either the original or MK2 guise. They even have the facility to screw them onto a tripod!

My metal cabinet speakers have included:
 
Monitor Audio BM100        probably late 70s early 80s
Technics SB-F1                 late 70s early 80s
TEAC LSX8MK2                90s
Realistic Minimus 7            90s
 
I’ve put these in order of sound quality but the Technics beats them all on the quality of the finish. They even look up to date right now and a good condition pairs sell for big money on ebay. Watch that the bass cone surrounds aren’t perished though, they’re made of foam and prone to rot especially if stored in a damp environment or used in direct sunlight.
 
Back at the HiFi Penta Show at Heathrow in 1992, I heard a pair of Alexander Speakers and was stunned at the sound vs appearance experience. A captivating set-up amongst some seriously esoteric offerings. We’d gone there on the last day, pointed out that another set up was out of phase that no one else had picked up upon, or at least mentioned to the exhibitor. We were ballsy teens after all. A Google search revealed this comment about the Alexander-based set-up:
 
I was sat mesmerised by a Rega 2, Creek 4140 and a tiny pair of Alexander SE2 speakers made of steel with cabinets no bigger than a house brick. I stayed and listened to a whole album and saw both Denis Morecroft and Max Townshend drawn in to listen. They introduced themselves to each other and were both charmed by no more than £500 worth of kit making what I thought was the best sound of the show.

Denis Morecroft - DNM Design
Max Townshend - Townshend Audio
 
… and I’m inclined to agree, perhaps bar a pair or ribbon Carver ALS floorstanders playing jazz, where we had to look behind them to see if there really was a trumpet player there. With a four-figure price-tag for the speakers alone we were both stunned and shocked but walked away, safe in the knowledge we would never spend that kind of wad on speakers as astonishingly real as those beauties. Oh, there was one other pair that would’ve have literally blown us away had the hotel room windows been open.. A pair of Cerwin Vegas. As crude as speakers get, but Chubby Checker and The Fat Boys – Wipeout was bordering on silly, but it did produce chuckles and grins from us. Actually, the TDL Studio range was pretty memorable too, now I reflect on it…
 
So, back in the real world…
 
My curiosity was piqued when I stumbled across a pair of the military-looking black bricks with fine chicken wire for a grille when they popped up on ebay for only the second time since I’d bothered to look over the last 5 years. With a starting bid of £25 and a £20 p&p fee I thought I’d have a punt. No one else bid and that eager wait between winning and receiving was verging on comical. Had my teen ears been tainted back in the day or had speakers moved on more than I’d care to admit?
 
Back in the day when £150 could by me some JPW Sonatas, Tannoy E11s, Monitor Audio 7s or some Celestion DL4 MK2. I pipped for some Celestions. On reflection, this wasn’t the best choice. I’d blown the tweeters on my ageing Celestion Ditton 120s that were a friend’s dad’s pair and I felt brand-loyal. The DL4s were dry, littered with ear-bleeding levels of sibilance and actually, having subsequently listened to the other 3 pairs of speakers more recently, the worst of the four. I should have gone for either the MA 7s or the Sonatas. I didn’t like the shape of the Sonata’s they looked dated and shared the same tweeter with much cheaper speakers. More recently, I’ve realised just how good those Sonata are though as long as you get the real wood finish ones. The MA’s, I love ‘em, but quite a different sound to the Sonata’s. Would I have bought the Alexander’s back then? Probably not. You couldn’t get them in either Laskys, Sevenoaks Hifi, or any of the Hifi Emporia on Tottenham Court Road, the second reason… They have no bass. None, ziltch… And looking in a May 1991 issue of What HiFi, it appears no one was selling them anyway!
 
They SE2 does look like some utilitarian black brick, that although made well, isn't finished perfectly, so I was expecting a similar sound. The same experience came over me as I plugged then in using banana plugged cable, the only method available on these and fired them up. Their clarity and openness is unbelievable. You know when Susan Boyle started to sing on X-Factor?... How could these crude bricks produce such an effortless, sweet sound? They immediately unearthed the Technics SB-F1 from the kitchen. I have a ‘cook and listen’ approach to food preparation. My wife immediately noticed that the kitchen sound was different, better, clearer, yet softer. No provocation, no asking, just that verbal response and a nod to the sound. I’d catch myself looking at them asking myself “how do they do that?” in essence reflecting on their reproduction of emotional intent behind the music.
 
This is where they stayed until I moved house. Well, to be honest, I did try my JBL Control 1s in their place but concluded they were unnatural sounding boomboxes, at least in that set-up anyway. So I put the Alexanders back. And nursed a lump on my head from unshelving a half-finished bottle of Drambuie that met with my head on its decent. At least neither smashed.
 
When we moved house, the diminutive Alexander SE2s were the first speakers I set up, quite literally on a shelf above the fireplace as we unpacked. I’d walk passed and stop in my tracks, box in hand and be compelled to listen, rather than just hear. 4 months on we are still unpacking, but the speakers have moved. The Acoustic Energy AE1s are back in pride of place and the Alexanders were boxed up to the garage. JBL Control 1 supply the kitchen/diner and until very recently, the MA 7s do the office. The MA BM100s in the bedroom. Tolerant wife, eh?
 
Something was missing…
 
The Alexanders were absent. I swapped them into the bedroom, but for the first time they didn’t sound right shoved in a corner. So I thought I’d put them in the office with my moth-balled TDL subwoofer. The 7s although fab for what they are, weren’t captivating me. I was hearing them in the office but not really listening. The Alexander bricks, plonked on the 7s, subwoofer plugged in and away we go… They are very much back in the game. The missing octave is all it needed. I have spent more time listening to this set up in the last week than I have to any other system since I’ve moved house in June. It’s nowhere near as detailed as the somewhat more clinical AE1 set-up, with its 3D soundstage and correctly guessing what shoes Eric Clapton is wearing on his ‘Unplugged’ album. But that’s what you do, you analyse the music. They were, after all, originally intended for studio monitoring.
 
The Alexanders are so listenable. Unfatiguing… That’s how I’d describe them. They’re still sitting on the MA 7s. Shame I don’t have the November 1990 What HiFi to see what they thought of them, but considering what they made of the Celestions back in March ’89, I’d be inclined to say I’m prepared to remain ignorantly blissful.
 
Alexander SE2 Loudspeakers
 
Spec
 
228mm H
116mm W
100mm D
2.6kg per speaker
Folded steel cabinet
Banana sockets
Infinite baffle
Black paint (Hammerite-type) finish
86dB/W (estimated)
 
SEAS H202 tweeter
SEAS FM11-based bass cone (rubber rather than foam surround)
 
PS The Technics SB-F1 are now in the bedroom, they look pretty and go with the décor!

Update 02/11/17

I sold the Technics SB-F1. I wasn't using them and they were in such good condition, I got good ££ for them :)

The Monitor Audio BM100 set are in the kitchen/diner.

The AE1s have moved from the lounge to a dedicated listening room and the Monitor Audio 7s are in the lounge now. To be honest, the AE1s didn't sound right in the lounge but the MA 7s do.

The Alexander SE2s are still in 'pride of place' in the office (garage) on a pair of stands made out of, er... Lego. I still listen to them the most, in my office (mancave). You can play them all day, every day. I love 'em.

I'm about to try a NOS DAC in the system pretty soon... Watch this space for the next blog!

This is a review of my experience comparing an Audio Note M-Zero with a Creek OBH-22 in a system comprising:

AE1 MKII speakers
TDL Nucleus SBR sub-woofer
TA2024-based power amp (biamped)
AMB Gamma 2 DAC from a laptop via the USB output
Speaker cables are ‘FFRC’
interconnects are Shark Silver Co-Ax with WBT terminals.

I’m a fan of T-amps, in particular the TA2024-based amplifier board from Helder-HiFi. I first heard about them from my brother, having set up a bare board into a kitchen set up and was blown away.

TA2024-based amps aren’t particularly powerful, but if your pursuit is quality over quantity for the price of pocket-money, I implore you to have a look and listen.

AE1 speakers even in MKII guise, are known for needing a fair amount of welly to get those metal cones moving, so I have my T-Amp doubled up in a bi-amp configuration, one for treble, one for bass.

I’ve read that valve-preamps marry up very nicely with the TA2024 power amps and that’s what I’ve been running for about 2 years in my domestic set-up.

You know how curiosity can get the better of you? Well, I wondered what my system would sound like if I ran the DAC straight off the power amp. You have to bear in mind that a laptop into a DAC has a variable output. Plug your CD player straight into the power amp and it’s going to be at full volume, so be careful!

Problem is, it sounded different… Quite a bit different. Now, if you’re pursuit of musical excellence is ‘truth’, this got me thinking and therein belies the review and comparison.

I’m not a professional reviewer, I just like listening to music in a system that is both convenient and doesn’t cost astronomical amounts of money.

So, what music did I use?

I particularly focussed on what I noticed and whether I liked it.

Please note that the attached videos are links to the tracks I listened to for reference. However, I used  MP3 audio format in the bitrate shown for the actual listening experience.

Summary

The first thing that hits me, is that the OBH-22 hits me! It’s harder, sharper, deeper, faster and ultimately, ‘freer’ – it sounds like the music has been liberated. I suppose electronically, it actually has.

The M-Zero experience is a smoother journey, possibly even more pleasant, conveying emotion and feeling exceptionally well, but it does alter the sound that’s fed to it. Pretty much all pre-amplifiers do, but the M-Zero 'prettifies' the music.

Conclusion

I feel the M-Zero is a better pre-amp if you want to hear the music, have it playing in the background in an unfatiguing way. However, if you want to listen to the music, and perhaps even analyse it, the OBH-22 is truer to the source by the very virtue of its circuitry. It literally lets through more of what it’s fed, sometimes wart ‘n’ all. Aesthetically, I feel the Audio Note is nicer… The Creek sticks out like a sore thumb in my predominately black system, but I like it. Both are remote amps so are just as convenient from the sofa. The M-Zero has more inputs (and outputs), the Creek maxes out at 3 inputs and that’s including the tape out and if you have ‘fat’ RCA/phono plugs you may have a problem squeezing them into their sockets!

… and finally

I’m now left wondering, do all passive pre-amplifiers sound the same?

Verbatim transcript from WHAT HI-FI?
May 1991 Haymarket Trade and Leisure publications LTD.

JPW Sonata Review

Small Wonders – an exploration of the ability of small speakers ranging in price from £100 - £800 and included:

Goodmans Maxim 2
Mission 760
Celestion 3
JBL XE1
Wharfedale Diamond IV
Mordaunt Short MS3.10
JPW Sonata
NAD 8225
Royd Coniston R
Rogers LS2a
Shan Shimna
Spendor LS3/5a
Linn Kan II
Monitor Audio Studio 5
Acoustic Energy AE1
Celestion SL600si

This is the one. The JPW is the best of the budget loudspeakers, and by such an overwhelming margin that there’s effectively no contest. The only problem with the Sonata, and this point has been made many times in the past, is that the tweeter can sound somewhat aggressive to the point of rawness when used directly from the box. It takes a considerable amount of running in before it reaches its peak.

When this has been accomplished, however, the improvement made is truly astonishing. It’s true that the treble doesn’t have either the grace or informativeness of the Wharfedale Diamond IV or Celestion 3 metal domes, but in this loudspeaker it is the bass/midrange driver that takes most of the load, and the whole area from lower treble down to the bass has an energy, vitality quite unique in this price range.

Colouration levels from the enclosure are much lower than normal, a fair reflection of the materials employed and the way they have been used, but the bass is also deeper and more solid. This helps provide a firmer foundation to the music, which literally sounds larger in scale and more tactile in feel when it matter.

The occasional rawness of the design imposes limitations on partnering equipment, which by preference should be smooth and well-behaved. This point apart, there were obvious constraints in the way the Sonata works with amplifiers and other components.

Build-quality mirrors the findings for sound quality. The sealed enclosure is larger than the other budget models, yet it is easily the most solid and resonance-free cabinet, partly achieved by using real wood veneers (with a balancing veneer internally) which helps stiffen the chipboard inbetween. Real wood veneers are more than merely decorative.

By contrast the combination of cone/dome tweeter and pulp cone bass look rather prosaic, but this belies the fact that what they are counts for less than how they are used. By any standards, it must be said, the JPW represents exceptional value for money.

+ Large, dynamic sound; it’s a real winner

- A trace of roughness; there’s little else to say.

The conclusion of the small loudspeaker test had the JPW Sonata coming 2nd (Acoustic Energy AE1 came in first in its original guise).

In conclusion they went on to say...

The JPW Sonata is far from being the second-best-sounding loudspeaker of the group (of 16 ranging from £100 - £800). It is the best value however, and by a sizable margin.

First appearances suggest a very ordinary system based on cost effective but rather ordinary drive units, the only slightly unusual point being the size of the enclosure, which is bigger than most of the price level. Take a closer look though, and you’ll see that the finish is real wood veneer which is extremely uncommon even at twice the price.

The idea of using real wood veneers on the box has certain attractions on aesthetic grounds of course, but there’s another much more important, though largely unrecognised, factor here.

Veneers strengthen the panels they’re applied to. A (cosmetically inferior) veneer is used on the inside of the panels for balancing purposes, and the effect is to sandwich the chipboard that makes up most of the thickness of the walls, in this case stiffening it enough to make the Sonata much less resonant than usual when tested with the standard knuckle test – basically, you rap it hard and listen for echoes (bad) or a dull thud (good).

The solidity of the enclosure reflects directly in the solidity of the sound, which extends  throughout the frequency range down to the deepest bass, which where most lightweight cheapies come unstuck. The Sonata is the speaker of contrasts: dynamic contrasts, tone colour contrasts, contrasts between notes and the spaces in between that somehow seem to get ‘filled up’ in lesser designs. A visual analogy for these benefits being the loss of deep blacks and subtle shadow detail on lesser television receivers.

Don’t expect the Sonata to perform straight from the box. Used without a thorough running-in process, which will take you at least a week, the Sonata tends to sound rather edgy and abrasive.