It is always surprised me why audio people never did what FM people did. FM people crated a site: http://www.FmTunerInfo.com where they enumerated in very consistent format all available FM tuners (with exemption of some  pro tuners and some  European tuners) and they created the a consumer guide for FM tuners, where each addition model enters into a hierarchal stricture of subjective evaluations and available features. Certainly the FM TunerInfo site has no final authority over the tuner critiques but the structure they crated is absolutely superb and very useful. I was wondering for year why audio people never created some kind of DAConvertersInfo.com site where would be described and evaluates, but experience testers and under the identical conditions, all available DA converters. Well, I know why it never happened. Then FM tuners is obsolete business and it is driven by a bunch of enthusiasts who have little financial sate or agenda why would like juts to peruse better results from FM tuners. The D/A converters is very much alive business driven by marketing whores where each new model released with more idiocy then desiccation of  purpose, benefit, sound and the points of reference. (I am talking about home-use DACs, not about the pro -audio DACs. The Pro DACs environment is way more civilized).  Anyhow, if would be fun to have the DAConvertersInfo.com site available as the D/A converters is the field that might be easily brought to a common denominator of Results. All of it would give a perspective to stage of DA conversion and would act as more or less objective quality assurance tool for uninformed people.

If such a centralized place dedicated to DA converters exists then I wonder where Museatex Bidat converter would be in the list of the converter’s hierarchy. The Bidat is in a way a freak of nature, starting from it design, going over it implementation and ending up with its sound. I personally adore some Bidat’s aspects; I have written here and there in my site about the converter but I realized that I never had a dedicated thread to Bidat. As far as I know there is no dedicated place to Bidat anywhere in the web. Well, let it be…. The Bidat is very strange DAC and not well deserve some publicity and attention.

I love the DAC, own quite a few of them and currently my trio of CEC TLO, Synopsis SPIDIF and one of my Bidats squeeze out of digital the most interesting 16/44 result. All Bidat units are different; there are a lot of reasons for it. Mine is, what whatever reasons, is the good one… Anyhow, being indomitable person, I considering pushing mu luck with Bidat. I have a very specific sense of direction and actions.  What I would like Bidat to do it is be able to be more effective at the very bottom octave but (and this absolutely mandatory condition) I would like Bidat to have no changes of any kind in any other region or aspect of performance.  I would call it a surgical intrusion but I think it is accomplishable.

 I will continue the thread and more information become available.

mark wrote:

i currently am in the process of obtaining a bidat,so this new thread is very timely for me.i currently use a highly modified audio aero capitole mkII se and modified 47 labs progression dac.i plan to work with john wright to take the bidat dac to a level that will give a result that will give me most of the best of what these 2 dacs do well and hopefully with a minimum of the shortcomings of these 2 dac methods.to touch briefly on the priority strengths of first the 47 labs progression dac.i have had some of the most enjoyable involving musical experiences with this dac;it does such a good job with rhythem and transients,very quick and lively.it is very direct and communicative,however in some system setups and some recordings it sounds a little to raw and brutal.the audio aero is very smooth lush and detailed,it seems to get all the detail out in a musical way with out rawness and brutality.it is very intimate especially in the midrange.it is not as good at rhythem and transient quickness as the 47 labs,if it was i would probably not be motivated to venture a change.i think that the adaptive filter in the bidat could be a key to getting me the results i am looking for(a starting point anyway).

I am not quite following why you need another DAC, Bidat for instance, if you are not experiencing any clearly-identified problems with your current DAC.

mark wrote:

could we try to begin to explore what is difference between bidats? what physical implementations(changes) in production(A) or in (B)subsequent upgrades and what results they produce.

It is hard to say. I have seen two manufactures who made Bidats. As I understand Meitner had ADS and somebody else (I do not remember who it was) who made Bidat for him. I had both and I did not see a lot of sonic difference. However, the original Bidat was not very well sounding DAC and it had a number of issues that had to be address by modifications. Some of them were very simple and hugely effective – like removing the idiotic power entry module with common mode filter – the filter killed sound (I have no idea what was in Meitner head what he put the thing in – did he ever listen his unit?!!!) Some of them were more technical and had to be performed by qualified technicians who know what they do. Many people did many things on Bidat and some of them did the bad things. So as a result any unit might sound different, deans of it’s history, or perhaps the production vintage. I really do not know the true reasons but I know that I have heard Bidats that sounded like crap.

BTW, my the most beloved and the best sounding Bidat I bought in 1999 from a local guy who hated how the DAC sounded and who then made comments to people I know laughing  “Romy paid $700 for this horrible DAC”. This DAC however sounded much better then my other 3 Bidat s I owned at that time and it is still, after all John’s  modifications sounds very-very nice.

Romy the Cat wrote:

It is always surprised me why audio people never did what FM people did. FM people crated a site: http://www.FmTunerInfo.com where they enumerated in very consistent format all available FM tuners (with exemption of some  pro tuners and some  European tuners) and they created the a consumer guide for FM tuners, where each addition model enters into a hierarchal stricture of subjective evaluations and available features. Certainly the FM TunerInfo site has no final authority over the tuner critiques but the structure they crated is absolutely superb and very useful. I was wondering for year why audio people never created some kind of DAConvertersInfo.com site where would be described and evaluates, but experience testers and under the identical conditions, all available DA converters. Well, I know why it never happened. Then FM tuners is obsolete business and it is driven by a bunch of enthusiasts who have little financial sate or agenda why would like juts to peruse better results from FM tuners. The D/A converters is very much alive business driven by marketing whores where each new model released with more idiocy then desiccation of  purpose, benefit, sound and the points of reference.

Though my new updated Bidat is too fresh but considering that I know very well how the Nichicon KZ progress with sound I think I can make some preliminary observations about the revised sound of my Bidat.

The change was not a large, less than I expected. The main objective was to get the very lower bass and I think this task was not accomplished with the last DAC revision (primary Bidat’s PS). The lower bass DID became deeper with new PS. Bidat formerly sounded absolutely identical at 16Bit as Pacific Microsonics. Now running bout of Pacific and Bidat into the same preamp and switching the line on prams via a remote control it is clear that the new Bidat has slightly deeper and slightly more articulate bass. (Here is where it is very nice to have a preamp with identically sounding inputs – how many of them out there?) However, the change with Bidat was roughly at the same time as I changed the PS on my Lavry DA924.  Running Bidat along with the new Lavry DA924++ it is clear that Badiat can’t compete with DA924++ in lover bass – what DA924++ does in lover bass is nothing short of untouchable.

There is one very interning and very positive change that I do observe in the updated Bidat. The new Bidat looks like slightly better cares HF that are presenting along with bass and midrange. It feels like the intermodulation lever was dropped. It is not a strong effect but notable and very positive.

OK, now about what is important:  as it is now, can the new DA924++ be the only DAC and to substitute Bidat – this is the question of questions to me. So far, the damn Bidat resists.

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=7038#7038

The Bidat has that “something” (thankfully that was killed by the recent PS modifications) that still, even with objectively inferior sound make it to sound in a way very interesting. That Bidat’s something might be described as 3 major characteristics:

1)   Absolutely different transients then other DACs. They are not “too good” or “too bad” they just “there” and you would never ask or question their appropriateness. Lavry for instance is a “brutal force” DAC and you can sometimes recognize the Lavry transient efforts. With Bidat it is never about “efforts” and the Bidat’s efforts are behind the scene.

2)   Very smartly rolled off HF. Bidat is not the most advanced HF performer but any other DAC that I heard (you can put here a long list of the best DACs you know off) are too bright for my taste. I do feel that 16Bit digital shell be intentionally rolled off. With FM that delivers excellently musical HF we have nothing above 15kHz -16kHz, so what? Anyhow, something is very right done in Bidat in HF rolling. I presume that it might be the accidentals properly of the op-amps the John Writhe chose to use, or the way how they are used… Who knows…

3)   The lower MF. Still, after all very positive changes in lower MF in my DA924++ the Bidat came and show off why I have been using this DAC for 10 year. The Bidat has that absolutely freakish “lower MF noise” that sets it apart from anything else. You read correctly it is “lower MF noise” or some kind of “lower MF dither” that makes sound very soft in that region but at the same time saturate that region with a lot of “meaty noise” , only this time word noise is more like an output of a hyper-sensitive microphone that picks up too much information. It is certainly not noise in a normal scene but it is rather an injection of some sort of excessive harmonic richness but this harmonic puffiness exist at the very prodigiously defined region somewhere in lover MF and very top of upper bass. I cannot define where it is exactly it is but it not there in midbass and it is not there in MF. I have no idea what it is – it might be an accident or a fault in analog stage, I know that among all Bidats that I owed this specific unit has the maximum amplitude of this “lower MF noise” problem – and… I enjoy each second of this fault.  BTW, all Bidats have it to one or another degree - so I think it was not designed characteristics but perhaps some sort of non-premeditated “boo-boo” of some kind of internal component or element.

What is very important that the latest PS modification looks like did not affect of damage any of the Bidat’s most valuable for me characteristics. Now, let see how it behave after the Nichicon-mandatory 30 days. So, far, with all the improvements on my DACs the total balance remains rightly the same as it was before of the improvements:

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=1877#1877

…with Lavry slightly move up from where it was due to the very positive reduction of the Lavry’s HF energy

Romy the Cat wrote:

2)   Very smartly rolled off HF. Bidat is not the most advanced HF performer but any other DAC that I heard (you can put here a long list of the best DACs you know off) are too bright for my taste. I do feel that 16Bit digital shell be intentionally rolled off. With FM that delivers excellently musical HF we have nothing above 15kHz -16kHz, so what? Anyhow, something is very right done in Bidat in HF rolling. I presume that it might be the accidentals properly of the op-amps the John Writhe chose to use, or the way how they are used… Who knows…

Telstar wrote:

Out of curiosity, how much does a Bidat costs nowadays and the Wright mods?

This is very interesting question and I had a conversation with John Wright about it a few days ago. He asked me the same question: what the Bidat worth nowadays. As I understand he has no control over it – he services the units of his users and has no inventory of Bidats.

When Musatex released Bidat if I am not mistaken they commented the capital crime for this stupid industry – they sold Bidat direct without bribing reviewers, soliciting good review and kissing in ass the dealers. I think they had some dealers but then they roll them back of something like this. As the result the vindictive industry kept Bidat in the closet, avoiding even mention the existence of it, not to mention to recommend it as 16bit DAC. The only industry allowed mentioning Bidat when Methner have moved already to SACD…

So, at the time of the “silence” the list price for Bidat Direct was $900. At that time used Bidat were 500-400. I got my first used Bidat for $550 and then a few others units between $400 and $1000. In begin of the 2000s the used Bidat was around $1K. The John Wright’s modifications were not relevant as you never knew what you were baying anyhow. (Also, John’s mode never were expansive)

In 2004 when I put my site up I listed one of my Bidats for $7.700. It was not because I intended to sell it but… juts to have fun with audio people.  I did not buy or sold any Bidats since 2002. What I read as some site that the fact that I listed my Bidat for $7.700 singlehandedly have risen the price for Bidats and nowadays they reportedly go for $3K-$4K, if they are available. I do not know certainly the market praise for Bidats nowadays as the last I dealt with was 6 years ago.

What I do know is the value of Bidat in my playback. There was the SACD craze and the EMM lab converters were flying for $12K, Zenden for $26K, AN 5.1 for $30K, DCS for $8K, MBL for $9K, Spectral for $11K.  I believe Bidat at 16Bit with hard-reading CD transport was more interesting, so how much should Bidat cost? 

I have to note that personally feel that DACs should not cost too much. It is basically a computer and costs nothing nowadays. You can buy today for 28$ a 1 sq inch processor with 48 Multibits, so what is the big deal to have 16bit converter to make? Well, perhaps the price in DA should derive not from the processor itself but from the sound it produces? If so, then the price should be not how much it cost but how much it saves to buy/try the competitors. It looks like Bidat at my 16-bit setup (paired with CEC TL0) might survive Lavry Gold, Weiss and Pacific Microsystems (though it did not give up to Pacific).

How much does it costs to me? Well, I think I would go for another round of making fun of the audio folks and would increase the price of my “ever selling Bidat” from $7.700 to I would say $18.75K. Let see how it will work out… :-)

To be more serious I do not know the answer about the Baidat price but I know that in my case there are sertane audio components that are more expensive to let go then to buy them. BTW, I have no personal stake in that entire “Bidat enthusiasm” as I do not sell Bidats. The only unit that I have available for sale is the one depicted above with the custom-built extensive output stage. The people who know me personally knows that it is absolutely does not matter to me if I sell it or not.

Paul S wrote:

None of these units except the original IDAT improved on my analog bass. Although it was hard to tell about bass harmonics with the music I heard, the original IDAT kicked ass with deep bass and absolute SPL.

Romy the Cat wrote:

The Bidat uses TDA1547 chip but I think the iDAT 44 and iDAT-M uses something else.

Yep, Telstar. The 1547 was use in Sony and Teac CD players and believe the first CD-SACD machines used that chip. I know very little about those chips and have none of my personal experience to deal with all of it. The reasons why I brought it up because Bidat used this processor but the IDAT does not and according to the people who apparently read the IDAT manual it said that it used the “less expensive processor”. I have no idea what it all means… 

Anyhow, here are the specification for IDAT44

Digital Filtering: 8X over sampling, DSP based intelligent design.
Frequency Response: 20 Hz to 20 KHz, +0,-0.5 dB.
Resolution: 18 bits.
Jitter: Less than 10pS. No periodic jitter.
Inter-channel difference (dB level/Ratio): 0.10 dB or better.
Noise, optical and electrical inputs (30 KHz BW) : Less than 90dB.
Inputs: TOSlink optical, 75 Ohm coaxial.
Outputs: Stereo (RCA) 300 Ohms.
Output Level: 2.5V RMS.
C-Lock™ anti-jitter input receiver.
Internal switching power supply allows operation from external 12V battery.
Continuous Calibration D/A conversion.
IDAT™ interpolation algorithm.
Fully balanced in the digital domain: 2 DACs/channel.

And here are the specification for Bidat (BTW, my unit has 5.9VRMS at output)

Romy the Cat wrote:

Yep, Telstar. The 1547 was use in Sony and Teac CD players and believe the first CD-SACD machines used that chip. I know very little about those chips and have none of my personal experience to deal with all of it. The reasons why I brought it up because Bidat used this processor but the IDAT does not and according to the people who apparently read the IDAT manual it said that it used the “less expensive processor”. I have no idea what it all means…

Thank you for the answer.

I think it referred to the DAC chip. The TDA1547 is not listed in the specs. According to a dac chip list site i saw, the 1547 was the premium chip of that series and probably was more expensive.

Romy the Cat wrote:

And here are the specification for Bidat (BTW, my unit has 5.9VRMS at output) Digital filtering: 8X over sampling, DSP based "Intelligent" design. Frequency Response: 20 Hz to 20 Khz +0, -0.5 dB. Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise: -90dB Jitter: Less than 10 PS. No periodic jitter. Crystal based PLL clock recovery system. Inter channel difference (dB level/Ratio): 0.10 dB or better. Noise, optical and electrical inputs (30 KHz BW): Less than 90 dB. Inputs: ST glass optical, TOSlink optical (EIA), 75 Ohm coaxial, AES/EBU broadcast standard (XLR). Outputs: Balanced stereo pair (XLR) 600 Ohms. Unbalanced pair (RCA) 300 Ohms. Output Level: 3.5Volts RMS (Maximum) C-Lock™ anti-jitter input receiver with digitally activated oscillator control. Dual transformers. Four layer printed circuit board. 16 to 20 bit digital audio word input. IDAT™ interpolation algorithm. Combination 7350/1547 single bit output.

Telstar wrote:

What's really different, besides AC and capacitors is the DSP. Meitner IDAT algorithm makes a difference for sure. Also, I dont know if it uses any digital and analog filters, the lack of may improve sound transparency.

I do not know certainly what filter Bidat uses. The guy who but the custom output stage (depicted above) and replaced the Bidat’s filters with his own filters told me that Bidat uses 2 order analog filters. Still I think that the hard of the Bidat is the freakish IDAT processing and accidently-successful cheap and primitive but very “interesting” sounding out stage.

As I understand the freakish IDAT concept is that the DAC has 2 separate converters with different architecture per channel. One converter is better suited for fast signals and another is better for slow signals. The DAC read the input stream and decide what kind signal it is and sends the conversion to one or to another converter depending on how fast the music was. Then the stream somehow combined again. So, theoretically it is elegant solution but it sound very scare and prone to destroy sound’s fabric completely. However, it does sound very fine all together, go figure.

BTW, it is highly possible that IDAT is works very nice juts being combined with specifically-bad output stage. A few years ago there was somewhere a conversation about the 5 patents that Meitner had for his DACS.  I asked John about it and he told very interning – he said the patents are fine but they have no relation to what Bidat does Sonics and the entire “kink” in Bidat is in the very specific implementation. I wish I know more, or let me to put this way: I wish I were be able to understand more. :-)