Hi Jeff. Good astute comments and observations. Did you reset the speakers after installing the DAC 9 and optimize the system once again ?

Good day. Thanks for that. I did not know.

pj

Click on any author's name and their system is shown in a new window.

Anyway, as I was scrolling to see/read something new, I again stumbled upon the back of your equipment stand photo. And two things occurred to me:

1) Did you list the equipment used in your evaluation ?
2) Are those Acoustic Zen Silver Reference II interconnects ? (Great cable !)

pj

Peeking inside the chassis of both is quite telling.

The A-10 (Aurender) is fully populated components and no doubt carefully selected and positioned parts. The internal layout is impressive. Six thousand dollars (a big chunk of change) can almost be justified, or at least respected considering the care and execution of its design.

The Manhattan II (Mytek) internals are, well, far less impressive. I basically see some extra room given to the twin transformers and a bank of filtering capacitors. About $100. in parts.
From there, we have what appears to be a basic circuit board no larger than the Brooklyn's. It's likely identical.
However one looks at it, six-thousand dollars is simply not evident in the Manhattan II.

As I suggested to Mytek, using the 'Brooklyn' chassis in various guises:

1) Remove the unnecessary extra features of the Brooklyn such as Phono, Analog IN's, Headphone amp, (Use the savings and incorporate a superior P/S --with internal "Out-board" power supply connector.

2) Use the chassis for the DAC only (for Brooklyn --9028PRO, Manhattan II ESS 9038)

3) Same chassis for an economical Brooklyn using the current (out of date ESS 9018 DAC)
and all the extraneous features currently in the Brooklyn in an entry-level ($899/$999.) Brooklyn "Lite" !

4) Same chassis for a (optional) sophisticated power supply.

With that said, let me say that I'm not as clever (or talented) as Mytek's founder/engineer. However, if the offerings were as above, I believe many more people could see the value and sensibility of such a product line.

As it is, the value proposition appears a bit off. particularly when one examine the innards of the Manhattan II.

Yet, Mytek must be commended for its foresight incorporating MQA (and a defeat feature!) on both models.

I have not heard, touched/examined either model. Here's hoping both are, or are considered class leaders.

peter jasz

And, you must change your equipment rack. It need not be expensive, it may not fit your concept of aesthetic, but a superior model is necessary. The one in the photo reminds me of the long-defunct Niaid (sp? stand maker) from the 1980's ?

Do some research. Lovan made some simple (but very effective) tripod style ones back in the early 2000's: modular, stackable, each "module" with is own spiked footer. It's amazing what an equipment rack can extract from components resting upon it.

Today, there are some very similar styles available. And very reasonably priced. No Stillpoints necessary --whatsoever.

pj

Hello Geoffrey (from beautiful Belgium) !

Very sensible reply. However, there ARE words (and references) that can be used in describing sound quality far more eloquently (palpably really) than the ubiquitous, headache-inducing, overused "analog-like" and "analytical" thrown around. Not to forget the "slam" used equally when describing multi-thousand (some times tens-of-thousand) dollar equipment.

And, although you enjoyed the 'Batman' reference, although charming for those who recognized it, does nothing in detailing, with finesse and word articulation the sound sophistication (i.e. quality) of a six-thousand (US$) dollar component.

Believe me, no one contemplating the A-10 will say " oh salesman, I can't wait to hear the slam, wham-bam thank you .... " of the Aurender !
At least I hope not. lol

I also must caution those without the necessary understanding of ALL "conditions" that impact any components sound quality, to exercise caution when attempting to describe SQ with any accuracy.

The reason very simple; Any seasoned and sensible listener can tell you the distinctive (and sometimes overwhelming) SQ differences imparted with a simple change of 'power cord', AC supply, the stand (equipment rack) it rests upon!, and many other seemingly inconsequential "changes" easily undertaken often results in profound SQ changes.

The "job" of the reviewer, is to at least undertake these variations and report upon its significance. If, while cognizant of AC quality for starters, and all other techniques known to change SQ as described above still results in underwhelming performance (using his decades long "trick-of-bags" any seasoned audiophile has earned) one must consider the unit possibly defective. Could be a simple (defective) part. In any case, this must be considered and resolved.

(Test measurements may pick it out and are essential, as would be the manufacturer's tests and reply before the 'reviewer's' observations (aural) are mettled out.
If not, it's an invitation to be picked apart. Mercilessly. And, appropriately.

peter jasz

I understand what you're trying to say here. But no review will accurately describe an audio component no matter what words are used. The same applies to measurements. I think we all have had discussions on the use of words to describe a piece of equipment. I for one think that you can use every word in the book. Why not.

I like the way srajan ebaen (6 moons) talks about gear and his view on the use of certain words like analogue, analytical,... However for me every word has multiple meanings and every word can help me to make a shortlist on equipment.

In the end, as we all now, you have to test or hear the aurender for yourself. And i for one love the reference to Batman. It adds something extra to the review.

Best regards

Geoff from Belgium

HI Geoffrey: Precisely what one should expect ( in fact demand) in a $6-K piece !

pj

Hi Dave: Fair enough. But an ode ?? (I didn't realize there was a Wham-Bam ode style!)

Anyway, I missed the reference. Now, for those of us moving past the nod, can you clarify (in articulate Batman language --you do realize the TV series Adam West used slick vocabulary ) the low-frequency performance of the Aurender A-10 ?

For it is here, in the 10 Hz.-500-Hz. range that is absolutely critical in the audio bandwidth --as is the weak (but essential) frequencies extending to nearly 50-KHz.

Feel free to use some of the adjectives I threw about in my earlier reply --if it applies.

A six-thousand dollar (audio component) investment deserves some qualified attention.

peter jasz

Those references were an ode to Adam West... Batman.

A six-grand device, and we are treated with "punch & crunch, bass & slam". WOW.

Connoisseurs, often revel in nuance and subtlety, far beyond the initial "punch" some products bring forth. Yet most often, it's about finesse, delicacy, resolution, shadings and then when called upon --a powerful, but lovely, resolute and layered portrayal of such energized program material !

That is, high-resolution Hi-Fi Dave.

It maybe best if you restrict your words to products and consumers who appreciate the wham, bang of products that can be found for fractions of the cost of the Aurender A-10 unit.

I believe it time, to get my writing pen out ...

peter jasz

Wireworld replaced a generic between the switch and the A10. From the NAS to the switch was already connected via another Wireworld cable.