Metrum Onyx versus Metrum Pavane

I have posted on this general topic before. I started out with the Hex (running SPDIF to transport) and "moved up" to the Pavane II a couple years ago. Subtle improvements in detail extraction and info retrieval were the yield. IMO, the Hex represents the better value but the Pavane is more complete. Bought both units new from HiFi Heaven.

Yea, I got the onyx for $1500 and can get the pavane level 3 for $3800 from a friend. Trying to decide.

@mrotino I have not tried any other connection with the Ambre/Onyx. I've heard from multiple people online it was by far the best connection to use.  What streamer do you use now?

OT but where'd you get an Onyx for $1500? Massive discount!

I'm using a modified Wyred for Sound Sonos Connect which only has spdif rca digital output.  I'm also using a modified cd transport with the same digital rca output connection to play cds.

I know I've read the I2S is supposed to be better but was wondering for any comments from those that used both.  

The Wyred for Sound does sound very good when streaming Tidal.  At some point I may buy the Ambre with Roon and connect via I2S.

I have the Onyx, it sounds so good and I lead such a busy life that I couldn't justify the Pavane. I spoke to Metrum personnel directly and they kinda agreed. Unless you listen critically everyday, it probably wouldn't make any "real" difference.

@nitewulf good to know! 

@nitewulf @justjames72 - +1!

I enjoy my Onyx as well, and good to know that its so good that the Pavane, even though I'm sure  it's likely a "little" better than the Onyx, it may not be justifiable for the add'l $$ required.

I run mine via AES/EBU from a Gustard U16 DDC (MacBook Pro connected to the U16 via USB), and the music is highly engaging, exciting, while liquid and natural!

I would love to know if the Ambre would be an upgrade to my setup above?? Now that Roon supports Tidal and Qobuz (btw, I think Qobuz hi-res is much better than Tidal MQA, but I don't have the Metrum module in my Onyx to do the second unwrapping of MQA), it might be time to try an Ambre. Any thoughts?

@1markr Greetings! That's interesting you say that Qobuz is better. My limited testing showed MQA to be better, but obviously it's all subjective. I don't have MQA enabled in my Onyx either, but I let Roon and the Ambre take care of the first unfold. I think you should def try the Ambre. what do you use now?

Interesting thread as I also was wondering about this given the large price difference between the two.  I guess the implementation of the output stage, etc. is good or similar enough in the Onyx that the extra expensive DAC chips don't make all that big of a difference versus the added cost?  Whatever, this was interesting info. 

Given the apparently relative small gains to be had by spending $$$ on the Pavane, it would seem trying a DAC from another make might make more sense. SW1X is another R2R NOS DAC that seems to be really pleasing their owners, and they offer an in-home trial period (and an upgrade path, I believe). I’d be inclined to try that before considering the Pavane since I think SW1X may be less expensive and will likely produce more absolute differences in sound vs. the Onyx than the Pavane. Whether good or bad, who knows? But that’s why the trial period is so key. FWIW.

@justjames72 …. I've had great success using a Gustard U16 to convert from my laptops USB output to the AES/EBU input on my Onyx. Before that, I used a Matrix X-SPDIF2 powered by an Uptone LPS1.2, and that worked great too, but I think the U16 itself is better. I recommissioned the LPS1.2 to my ethernet switch.

@soix 
So, are you going to take one for the team and audition SW1X against the Onyx? ;)  Would love to hear about that comparison!

I think they use tubes, which I think helps with the sense of utter dimensionality that owners seem to rave about.  No idea if better or worse than Metrum (that's always a personal decision anyway), but I think the use of tubes will make them sound different.  And I emphasize "different," not better or worse.  Again, they have a trial period and if you have the means it would seem like a REALLY good comparison.  Personally, these two are in the top two in my sites so I'd love to hear a comparison.  Someone did a comparison between an Octave and an SW1X DAC and preferred the latter, but I pretty much reject that as I don't think the Octave is near the performance of the Onyx nor an appropriate comparison, so the beat goes on. 

@1markr -- I'd absolutely love to do the comparo, but my amp is currently dead as would be my marriage if I tried to both repair my amp and buy another DAC at the same time.  Very much hoping someone else can do it though. 

The onyx is the best value for money. As said by the developper Cees Ruytenberg himself. But that said the Pavane delivers a bit more relaxing, punch en extra deep bass. It has a bigger powersupply. The only way to notice iff its worth the investment is to compare them both.

I2s is a better step compared tot Spdif or AES/Ebu in my set. The match is also SuperB WITH ONYX OR Pavane.
its adviced in MQA to do the unfold by roon. Although it possible to use a MQA module there is hardly SQ improvemend. Because the Metrum is a ladder dac an has no limited filter opions; there for no problems with MQA in standard mode.

Yup Tommd. Agreed, I let Roon do the first unfold for MQA and think it sounds fantastic. Anjo at Metrum told me to not worry about getting the MQA module for Onyx. so there's that!

It's not so much about "how better can it get" rather, how astonishingly good the Onyx/Jade are for the price.

Pavane has more output hardware, dual transformers and two more r2r chips (same generation chips as Onyx/Jade) per channel.  So in theory better channel separation and faster calculation. How audible? You decide.

At this level, I'd concentrate more on speakers, speaker placement, room correction than wondering about source upgrades.

+1 @nitewulf -- sage advice.  Do you own the Onyx?  If so, what have you compared it to?

Yes I own the Onyx, I have owned it almost since it came out. The dac progression would be:

Peachtree Decco integrated > HRT Music Streamer + > Cambridge Audio Dacmagic + > PS Audio Perfectwave MK2 > Metrum Onyx

I own a portable high res audio player from Pioneer (XDP 100R) which uses the Sabre ESS9018 chips. This is also a fairly high end player as far as that space is concerned.

And of course I heard plenty of other dacs such as the T+A DAC8 DSD, Mytek Brooklyn etc.

I prefer the rounded, tangible nature of the Metrum over the delta sigma dacs I have owned.  This is also an extremely high resolution, noiseless dac. 

I can’t comment on the Pavane but I feed my Onyx from the baby Ambre via spdif and it sounds better than when I had the USB connection from SoTM sms-200 (which was itself improved when I went through a schiit eitr to convert to spdif prior to getting the baby Ambre!) simpler is better, hence replacing both SoTM and eitr with baby Ambre. I still plan to go i2s from regular Ambre at some point in the future.

Hi guys! I am interested in the Metrum dacs, but I have a few concerns. Can you detail a bit how the two (Onyx and Pavane) stack up to each other as well as in absolute terms with respect to:

a) the soundstage width (I’ve read that Onyx is quite narrow, I can’t stand anything narrow) and

b) HF extension (I don’t need / like a piercing treble, but I can’t stand a rolled off one, I need to hear all the beautiful HF resonance of a lightly hit triangle decaying naturally, for example, instead of cut short or borrowed in the mix)?
Please if possible mention the inputs and outputs used in your comparison. I’d probably use a CD transport via electrical SPDIF and both the unbalanced and balanced outputs.
Oh, by the way, can something like Ambre be also used for playing music from the computer’s HDD? Sorry if this is a dumb question...

Thanks!

...Anybody?!

I stopped reading after you said, "Ive read that Onyx has a narrow soundstage" 

Why, you disagree with this assertion?The impressions I've read are quite contradictory in this regard - hence my specific questions above. Please, feel free to contradict this statement.

To put things in perspective, when I had the Gungnir Multibit in my system for a few weeks I Ioved many of its sound traits but wanted a wider stage, much blacker background, better treble extension (the stuff above ~10kHz, probably), a more relaxed, effortless presentation (difficult to put it into words, it was a bit as if I was kept in a bit of a tension all the time, perhaps something similar to how I felt about my ex AKG K1000 / D class amplifier as opposed to the effortlessness my Stax) and maybe just a little thicker tone (but this latest thing might have been more a matter of synergy). All heard in a couple of solid state systems + my Stax headphones. It was the (supposedly) latest, unofficial "A2" version (November 2017), kept on all the time and with more than 200 hours of burn in.

@don

The issue is, many of your questions are system dependent, as in, what are the speakers and how are they placed in the room.  Anything to do with sound stage is more dependent on speakers and speaker placement than electronics. At this level, the electronics are high fidelity and detailed, there's great channel separation, bandwidth and signal to noise ration. 

Secondly I don't think many have compared the Pavane to the Onyx directly, unless there's DAC meetup, these comparisons are difficult to do.

OS dacs sound different than NOS dacs. Delta Sigma dacs sound different than R2R dacs. Onyx/Pavane are both NOS and R2R. Typically these sound more relaxed than delta sigma dacs, I don't know why. But keep in mind all dacs have a sin(x)/x roll off which is compensated in OS dacs. And you can compensate for that in NOS dacs by oversampling in software before sending to the dac.

Either way, with My speakers and electronics (Legacy Signature SE, Lyric Audio Ti 140 MK2, home built HTPC w/ SSD feeding the Onyx via USB) the sound is effortless, noise free and high resolution. You can check my original review for more technical stuff.  If you name some test tracks you use I can play them and get back to you.

Thanks for your answer and your offer to provide me with further information!
Regarding the soundstage, I have found that various sources (CD players, Dacs) can have a significant impact upon its width. My hearing is probably not trained enough to hear depth or height very well (I’m an avid headphone listener) and my speakers system + room is not very helpful, but I hear the width clearly. I have heard these soundstage width differences easily in speakers as well as in headphohes. So, compared to any other sources you have heard, is Onyx’ soundstage broader or narrower? I don’t have a specific track to test soundstage width, for me it’s pretty apparent on any material. If you need something very specific, maybe, from the top of my head: track 1 "Yulunga: Spirit Dance" from Dead Can Dance - "Into the Labyrinth" (after min. 2:53 or so). For example, the hard panning of the left side maracas at min. 2:53 and the rest of the track following this. This is, by the way, a track I’m using to check for reasonable bass extension (tympani at 2:29 and a few times later - not extremely deep but it’s about my threshold for "reasonably extended") and tactility / snappiness / punchiness (from min. 3:02 on).

As for the highs, I often use the beginning of track 7 "Desolate Mountains II" of Jan Garbareck’s album "Visible World". I pay attention to the actual treble extension as well as to the chromatic contrast between the various percussion "notes" - the Gungnir Multibit tended decrease a bit the highest frequencies, accentuate the mid-treble (8-10 kHz? - I don’t know the exact frequency band) and attenuate a bit the aforementioned chromatic contrast (making everything a bit more uniformly grey and metallic). Small things, but I could hear them clearly and it did bother me. How do you find the Onyx compared to my description of the Gungnir?

I think if I was looking what you're looking for, I might look for a DAC with tubes.  My first choice would be SW1X, which offers an in- home trial period that I think is invaluable.  Given the feedback by owners, this is an outstanding DAC that you're probably unlikely to return.  BTW, if you want another recording with outstanding width, pick up one of these.  A lot of the recording lives 3 to 5 feet outside the speakers.  Don't know if it's a phase trick or not, but it's a really cool recording and great music to boot. 

https://www.discogs.com/Various-15th-Anniversary-Sampler/release/7022235

@don -- And BTW, I agree with @nitewulf that a lot of width has to do with speakers and placement, but also amp and preamp. Unfortunately, IME, it ALL matters. IMHO, any very good DAC will provide this width information. My question is, maybe you're looking for enhanced or maybe even artificial width in audio reproduction? And that's perfectly cool if that's what matters to you. Anyway, I'd echo my previous recommendation to audition a DAC with tubes like the SW1X. You can do so almost risk free, and owners speak very positively of an expansive soundstage. Best of luck.

I have been very busy but I will get back to my impressions on known audiophile tracks as well the tracks you mentioned. One quick note is as a headphone listener your experience of soundstage is different than a primarily speaker listener. Of course it’s extremely easy to place instruments and even follow instruments as they move with the Onyx ( Train Song):
https://www.lifewire.com/stereo-test-tracks-3134905

my issue is more what soix mentioned, do you like exaggerated soundstage width beyond speakers all the time? As most tracks aren’t recorded that way.

Unfortunately, I have not heard the Onyx but I have owned the Octave II, Hex, Pavane, Adagio, and finally settled in with the Pavane L3.  After owning the Adagio as well as the original edition and (more recently) the highest level Pavane L3, it is my opinion you cannot go wrong with either.  The Adagio run amp-direct provides a very simple and great sounding alternative.  The Pavane L3 is just as good but only improves on the Adagio in the area of tonal density and only when used with a very high quality preamp.   The Adagio has slightly better resolution  but that is splitting hairs.
I use the Antipodes DX Gen3 with a Roon endpoint, which is currently either the Metrum Ambre or the SOtM triad (three boxes) consisting of SOtM's sPS-200ultra (Roon endpoint), tx-USBultra (USB reclocker), and sPS-500 (power supply for both).  At about 1/3 the price of the SOtM gear, the Ambre sounds arguably just as good although slightly different.  I have not yet decided which endpoint I will keep - they both sound great.  Running I2S directly into my Pavane is a plus and probably the best connection between that and the Ambre, but is not an overwhelming improvement over using AES/EBU from the Ambre to the Pavane L3.  I think it is awesome that Metrum offers a user-installable board to facilitate the I2S connection.
As you move up in the line, IME each successive Metrum upgrade provides more of their signature, natural sound while improving dynamics, tonal qualities, detail, and refinement.  They are a very complete company that manufacturers practical, great-sounding, and high quality products, and they are very easy people to work with.
BTW, speaking of unnaturally expanded soundstaging, that is what I heard when I tried the early Lampizator L4 G4.