Musical Fidelity X-10v3 tube output buffer

[pearsall001]

Just curious if anyone here has tried one of these in there system? I'm half tempted to give one a shot. Any feed back would be appreciated. Thanks

 

[zildjian]

I second pearsall001's request as I was just reading today about the X-10v3 and thinking about trying one myself. I know Highfihoney has Cary's Blackbox (which sadly they don't make anymore) which he preferred over the X-10v3. Any further info would be appreciated.
Brad

 

[Mister Crash]

Make that three of us. I'm trying to decide on a new set-up, and have been debating between tube and solid-state amps. I'd just as soon get a SS amp with a tube buffer so I could freely choose to add the tube sound whenever I wanted. So, I've been looking into the Musical Fidelity X-10 V3, the Decware Z-Box, the Behringer Tube Composer T1952, etc. I would be very interested to hear others' opinions about these products.

 

[sleepysurf]

I just ordered one myself from amusicdirect.com They offer a 30 day return policy (no restocking fee), and shipping is only $8. Can't beat that deal to find out how it performs in your system. I use a Squeezebox2 as my transport, and want to see (hear) if the X-10 eliminates the "digital glare" common on older CD recordings.

 

[papostol]

I've had one for about 6 months now. I have an old Rotel CD player so I put in in line with that. It works nice and other that multichannel, I have a hard time telling the difference between my SACD and CD.

Pete

 

[Rob Babcock]

I've had one for about 6 months now. I have an old Rotel CD player so I put in in line with that. It works nice and other that multichannel, I have a hard time telling the difference between my SACD and CD.

Pete

With 2CH recordings you don't need a box with tubes for that- you'd be hard pressed to tell the diff between SACD & CD with an identical recording.

 

[sleepysurf]

Well, just received my X-10, and after 2 hrs of listening, here are my initial impressions. It DEFINITELY changes the sound, though remains to be seen if worth $400.

I've been using a Squeezebox2 as my source (FLAC files), feeding a Benchmark DAC-1, then direct to amp (no Pre). This setup still had a fair bit of "digital glare" on some recordings.

I first tried the SB2 analog out (using the built-in DAC) > X-10 > direct to amp (without Benchmark)... still very "harsh" on the high end. I then went SB2 (digital out) > Benchmark > X-10 > Amp... MUCH improved. Definitely "buffers" out the "digital glare" as I hoped it would. Imaging and soundstage depth remain excellent, but the bass is a tad more sedate.

I'll report back again after some extended listening this weekend!

 

[sleepysurf]

Well, after some extended listening, I've decided to return the X-10. It definitely improved the "digital glare" on some recordings, but muddied up the bass (some midrange too) on everything else. For MY system, the downside was worse than the benefit.

I've decided to keep my components as is, and upgrade my speakers next. As much as I'd love to get the ML Summits, I can't justify the expense, so I plan to get the ML Vantages, which go down to 34 Hz (rather than 24 Hz of the Summits). From what I've heard, and read, these latest ML designs are their best yet, and the new stat panels have more radiating area and are less "bright" than the older designs.

If I still end up with listening fatigue, I'll probably upgrade to a tube pre-amp (probably the Modwright).

 

[Rob Babcock]

If you can afford it/justify the price, you'll probably be delighted with the Modwright. I've never heard a bad word about it from anyone. It's won its way into many reference systems.

 

[TABCON]

I purchased one last year after having purchased a new Rotel system. My old system consisted of a 1973 Marantz receiver and the Rotel could not even come close to the warmth I was used to. The X-10 helped a bit, but it still didn't give me the warmth I was looking for. I still use the X-10, and believe it or not, it's getting warmer and warmer as the Rotel breaks in.

Is it worth the money, well it's starting to be.

Tabcon

 

[mtrycrafts]

I purchased one last year after having purchased a new Rotel system. My old system consisted of a 1973 Marantz receiver and the Rotel could not even come close to the warmth I was used to. The X-10 helped a bit, but it still didn't give me the warmth I was looking for. I still use the X-10, and believe it or not, it's getting warmer and warmer as the Rotel breaks in.

Is it worth the money, well it's starting to be.

Tabcon

Warmth you are looking for? Get some EQ and roll off your high end to your warmth comfort zone.

 

[sleepysurf]

Well, it's been a while, but went all out and upgraded to BOTH the Modwright SWL 9.0SE *AND* the ML Summits. All I can say is WOW! Together, I now have an immense soundstage. as deep as it is wide, with incredibly tight bass and breathy vocals, totally devoid of the "digital glare" that plagued my previous system on some recordings. The Modwright indeed lives up to it's reputation as do the incredible Summits. Next step for me is working on room acoustics.

 

[evan]

I have had it for a year now and I am pleased with the warmth and yes I was nuts and picked up the power supply a few months back , and I feel it warmed up the sound more, 800 bucks later , just think of the cd player I could of bought , but whats done is done