DCS Rossini

[microstrip]

(...) The fact that PCM and DSD have these inherent characteristics (incisiveness / flow - my add) , or at least, listeners are describing it in these terms, it seems to me that those are colorations inherent in the format, and that is less than ideal. (...)

I am not as sure as you, Peter. IMHO most of the opinions that I have read here are strongly correlated with the implementation of the DAC and it also seems to me we do not have statistic enough to support these claims. Just anecdotal, but I have found that Aliavox - the Jodi Savall label - SACDs have more incisiveness than the CD layer on the Vivaldi.

BTW, I have downloaded the Handel "Water Music: Akademie für Alte Musik Berlin" (Harmonia Mundi) hi rez PCM file. Great music, a different and faster version of this work that seems recorded from a natural perspective - no row A, happily - and brass keeps all its natural freshness. Perhaps some people would say inadvertently : Oh, great DSD sounding!

 

[Enatai252]

Gentlemen, ...of course I could be wrong,

Yep....you are.

 

[Al M.]

Al, your comment about listening perspective is a good one. Music tends to sound different depending on where the listener is seated. There does not seem to be a right and a wrong. Shouldn't a system, or format, capture the listening perspective accurately, regardless of one's preference? If the recording engineer's intent is for an incisive sound, a system should reproduce that. And if it is for a more flowing sound from a further back perspective, the system should reproduce that impression. The fact that PCM and DSD have these inherent characteristics, or at least, listeners are describing it in these terms, it seems to me that those are colorations inherent in the format, and that is less than ideal.

If accurate playback is the goal, then it would seem that digital still has room for improvement, despite how good it now sounds and how we have preferences for one format over the other. At some point, I hope these characteristics converge, and are not easily audible, so that the music comes through the way the musician and engineer intend it.

How do we know which playback is accurate, and the way the musician and engineer intend it? We don't know which studio system/monitors/mixing room acoustic the engineer had at hand, and speaking from a musician's perspective is difficult. The musician playing the instrument certainly hears the music differently than the listener at some distance from the instrument.

In my view it comes down not to accuracy but to believability. And a number of sounds are in the range of believability, whereas others clearly are not (we both of course agree on this idea). And within the range that is believable, picking one sound over the other is preference. I am not sure we can ever say for certain that one sound is more colored with respect to the 'absolute' than another, as long as they are both believable. What is the 'absolute'? Even the recording engineer may not know it, since his/her mixing might be different were s/he in a studio with different monitors/acoustic. How can the engineer even correct for these variables in the particular listening situation s/he is in? My contention is that s/he cannot, or if so, only in a limited manner.

Is the 'absolute' the sound of the live performance at the position where the microphones are? Perhaps, but then it is known that microphones 'hear' differently that human ears. This fact alone throws any notion of 'absolute' reference out the window -- and thus any notion of absolute accuracy.

 

[Al M.]

BTW, I have downloaded the Handel "Water Music: Akademie für Alte Musik Berlin" (Harmonia Mundi) hi rez PCM file. Great music, a different and faster version of this work that seems recorded from a natural perspective - no row A, happily - and brass keeps all its natural freshness. Perhaps some people would say inadvertently : Oh, great DSD sounding!

Why is row A not a natural perspective? I often love to sit in row A!

(Not in Boston Symphony Hall, incidentally, because then the music washes over your head, but in many other venues.)

 

[PeterA]

How do we know which playback is accurate, and the way the musician and engineer intend it? We don't know which studio system/monitors/mixing room acoustic the engineer had at hand, and speaking from a musician's perspective is difficult. The musician playing the instrument certainly hears the music differently than the listener at some distance from the instrument.

In my view it comes down not to accuracy but to believability. And a number of sounds are in the range of believability, whereas others clearly are not (we both of course agree on this idea). And within the range that is believable, picking one sound over the other is preference. I am not sure we can ever say for certain that one sound is more colored with respect to the 'absolute' than another, as long as they are both believable. What is the 'absolute'? Even the recording engineer may not know it, since his/her mixing might be different were s/he in a studio with different monitors/acoustic. How can the engineer even correct for these variables in the particular listening situation s/he is in? My contention is that s/he cannot, or if so, only in a limited manner.

Is the 'absolute' the sound of the live performance at the position where the microphones are? Perhaps, but then it is known that microphones 'hear' differently that human ears. This fact alone throws any notion of 'absolute' reference out the window -- and thus any notion of absolute accuracy.

I'm responding to reports from a few listeners that they hear PCM as more incisive and DSD as more flowing. This is the general sense that I have gotten from reading what people are hearing when directly comparing PCM to DSD. If that is the case, and I'm not saying it is, that suggests to me (only) that the formats, implementation, or technology lays this character over the music. On the other hand, it may be, as microstrip writes, that these reports are simply anecdotal and not the way the formats inherently sound.

Of course you are correct that we can never know everything about the recording and engineering chain. I did not intend to reference that. I referenced the intent of the the musician and the recording engineer. If, that is IF, they intended the recording to sound more "incisive" rather than "flowing", then I would prefer that come across to the listener, regardless of which format is being used. If one format gives the impression of more incisiveness than the other, than I don't think that is ideal because it means that format has a "sound".

You and I have discussed the "absolute sound" a few times, and I think we agree that it does not exist. There are many variations of absolute sound, and so we prefer a believable sound. I'm OK with using "believability" rather than "accuracy" in a general sense. However, I want my system to "accurately" convey what is on the recording. That seems less vague than a system "believably" conveying what is on the recording. What would that actually mean? I think we also agree that we would like our two respective systems to sound "believable" most of the time.

If one does not ascribe different characteristics to the general sound of PCM and DSD, then my point makes no sense and can be ignored.

 

[microstrip]

Why is row A not a natural perspective? I often love to sit in row A!

(Not in Boston Symphony Hall, incidentally, because then the music washes over your head, but in many other venues.)

No disregard or offense towards row A listeners at all! But statically the majority of people prefer other rows - late ticket buyers know about it - and our audio language often adapts to the preference of majorities. Besides the designation of "row A" is often associated to the hyper detail and focus of some multi-mic recordings, that do not sound natural for me.

 

[Al M.]

I'm responding to reports from a few listeners that they hear PCM as more incisive and DSD as more flowing. This is the general sense that I have gotten from reading what people are hearing when directly comparing PCM to DSD. If that is the case, and I'm not saying it is, that suggests to me (only) that the formats, implementation, or technology lays this character over the music. On the other hand, it may be, as microstrip writes, that these reports are simply anecdotal and not the way the formats inherently sound.

Of course you are correct that we can never know everything about the recording and engineering chain. I did not intend to reference that. I referenced the intent of the the musician and the recording engineer. If, that is IF, they intended the recording to sound more "incisive" rather than "flowing", then I would prefer that come across to the listener, regardless of which format is being used. If one format gives the impression of more incisiveness than the other, than I don't think that is ideal because it means that format has a "sound".

You and I have discussed the "absolute sound" a few times, and I think we agree that it does not exist. There are many variations of absolute sound, and so we prefer a believable sound. I'm OK with using "believability" rather than "accuracy" in a general sense. However, I want my system to "accurately" convey what is on the recording. That seems less vague than a system "believably" conveying what is on the recording. What would that actually mean? I think we also agree that we would like our two respective systems to sound "believable" most of the time.

If one does not ascribe different characteristics to the general sound of PCM and DSD, then my point makes no sense and can be ignored.

Thanks, Peter, for the clarification.

 

[acousticsguru]

If one were to compare offline conversions from DSD to PCM (planning a little blind test), playing back the native DSD file from e.g. a USB pen drive, does the Rossini automatically boost the playback by 6 dB? Also, am I assuming correctly that the USB pen drive containing the native DSD files (DFF or DSF) and conversions (e.g. WAV) would need to be formatted in FAT32 in order to be recognized? Thanks in advance!

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[bmichels]

I am myself very interested in the ROSSINI to drive my BHSE tube amp + STax SR009 electrostatic set-up.

But, with the Stax SR009 that is already VERY detailed and sometimes a little too analytical, I really need a DAC that is not sounding Digital at all. I need to warm up a little the STAX to preserve musicality while providing all the micro details that the STAX can reproduce. So I wonder if the Rossini will meet that difficult goal ? Or may be a R2R/tube DAC will be a better alternative (TotalDAC D1-Tube ? Nagra HD DAC ? BRINKMANN Nyquist DAC ? Aries cera Kassandra ? ...)

Also, has someone compared the ROSSINI to the Esoteric K-03x (or K-01x) + G2 clock ? The new X series seems to have a much less digital sound than the previous versions ?

 

[acousticsguru]

John Atkinson has a review of the Rossinni in the latest Stereophile. He upsamples?/ oversamples?/ recalculates everything into DSD, even music that originated as PCM.

Amazing that dCS has failed in PCM!

Auditioned the Rossini on Sunday. We came to the conclusion DXD upsampling sounds best for PCM. DSD upsampling softens the sound, so it may be worth resorting to to make aggressive recordings more palatable. But then, we also preferred the dCS minimum phase filter - by far. Best not to read (let alone trust in) audio reviews but listen for oneself.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[Elberoth]

I am myself very interested in the ROSSINI to drive my BHSE tube amp + STax SR009 electrostatic set-up.

But, with the Stax SR009 that is already VERY detailed and sometimes a little too analytical, I really need a DAC that is not sounding Digital at all. I need to warm up a little the STAX to preserve musicality while providing all the micro details that the STAX can reproduce. So I wonder if the Rossini will meet that difficult goal ? Or may be a R2R/tube DAC will be a better alternative (TotalDAC D1-Tube ? Nagra HD DAC ? BRINKMANN Nyquist DAC ? Aries cera Kassandra ? ...)

Also, has someone compared the ROSSINI to the Esoteric K-03x (or K-01x) + G2 clock ? The new X series seems to have a much less digital sound than the previous versions ?

Long time dCS fan and owner, I'm not sure this would be the right choice for you.

If you are after slightly warmer presentation, I would try sth like the TotalDAC D-1. I had the regular one at home (read: non tube) and it was much warmer and solid sounding, with much more saturated colors, than both my dCS and MSB DAC IV Diamond.

The other option which should fit the bill both in terms of overall sound quality and a certain tone color you are looking for, is Lampizator Big 7 or Golden Gate (with the former sounding even fuller than Golden Gate). I haven't heard the Aries, but on paper it looks like a contender.

 

[acousticsguru]

Long time dCS fan and owner, I'm not sure this would be the right choice for you.

If you are after slightly warmer presentation, I would try sth like the TotalDAC D-1. I had the regular one at home (read: non tube) and it was much warmer and solid sounding, with much more saturated colors, than both my dCS and MSB DAC IV Diamond.

The other option which should fit the bill both in terms of overall sound quality and a certain tone color you are looking for, is Lampizator Big 7 or Golden Gate (with the former sounding even fuller than Golden Gate). I haven't heard the Aries, but on paper it looks like a contender.

Even the new Atlantic (heard the model with DSD512 chipless plus R2R PCM plus rectifier tube plus super-clock in comparison to a Siebener and a GG) might fit the bill. Cuddle up by the fireplace, metaphorically speaking! Not a secret I'm in the dCS camp, too, but whenever I hear someone describing their system as in need of anything, my reaction is not to recommend dCS. It's like Spectral to me, same category - don't ever expect gear of that category to patch up anything whatsoever.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[acousticsguru]

Even the new Atlantic (heard the model with DSD512 chipless plus R2R PCM plus rectifier tube plus super-clock in comparison to a Siebener and a GG) might fit the bill. Cuddle up by the fireplace, metaphorically speaking! Not a secret I'm in the dCS camp, too, but whenever I hear someone describing their system as in need of anything, my reaction is not to recommend dCS. It's like Spectral to me, same category - don't ever expect gear of that category to patch up anything whatsoever.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

To put it another way: our engineer friend kept the Rossini, which he's had at home for a week or two already - but after all this time, he couldn't come up with a more in-depth description of it than that "it somehow sounds just right". That sums it up. All the other stuff we auditioned didn't, one way or another. His odyssey has come to an end. But "do" something (let alone much) to the sound, it does not.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[microstrip]

I am myself very interested in the ROSSINI to drive my BHSE tube amp + STax SR009 electrostatic set-up.

But, with the Stax SR009 that is already VERY detailed and sometimes a little too analytical, I really need a DAC that is not sounding Digital at all. I need to warm up a little the STAX to preserve musicality while providing all the micro details that the STAX can reproduce. So I wonder if the Rossini will meet that difficult goal ? Or may be a R2R/tube DAC will be a better alternative (TotalDAC D1-Tube ? Nagra HD DAC ? BRINKMANN Nyquist DAC ? Aries cera Kassandra ? ...)

Also, has someone compared the ROSSINI to the Esoteric K-03x (or K-01x) + G2 clock ? The new X series seems to have a much less digital sound than the previous versions ?

All the DACs you refer are of high quality, none of them sounds "digital" . IMHO the only way to decide is listening. Remember that some people (not me, surely!) claim that the DCS sound after the last revision (that applied to the Rossini) became too warm ...

 

[bonzo75]

I am myself very interested in the ROSSINI to drive my BHSE tube amp + STax SR009 electrostatic set-up.

But, with the Stax SR009 that is already VERY detailed and sometimes a little too analytical, I really need a DAC that is not sounding Digital at all. I need to warm up a little the STAX to preserve musicality while providing all the micro details that the STAX can reproduce. So I wonder if the Rossini will meet that difficult goal ? Or may be a R2R/tube DAC will be a better alternative (TotalDAC D1-Tube ? Nagra HD DAC ? BRINKMANN Nyquist DAC ? Aries cera Kassandra ? ...)

Also, has someone compared the ROSSINI to the Esoteric K-03x (or K-01x) + G2 clock ? The new X series seems to have a much less digital sound than the previous versions ?

View attachment 30086

I have compared the Lampi Big 7 to do Esoteric K01, one with the clock. I also compared the GG to the one with the clock and to one K01x.

While I preferred the Lampi much more on all fronts, one of the owners (of the one with the clock) decided to get a Lampi after that 30 min session. He is waiting to get his funds sorted

Another accepted that the Lampi was better but could not be bothered as he did most of his listening on a Schopper Thorens 124 and an Audiograil garrard.

 

[acousticsguru]

All the DACs you refer are of high quality, none of them sounds "digital" . IMHO the only way to decide is listening. Remember that some people (not me, surely!) claim that the DCS sound after the last revision (that applied to the Rossini) became too warm ...

We (meaning my two Zürich friends and me, who all own dCS of different generations now) found the difference to be gradual (and entirely for the better, so far as I could tell from a first afternoon session), as one would expect from gear that isn't meant to impose its own character on the music, but aims to be as revealing of the source as possible.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[Kingsrule]

Auditioned the Rossini on Sunday. We came to the conclusion DXD upsampling sounds best for PCM. DSD upsampling softens the sound, so it may be worth resorting to to make aggressive recordings more palatable. But then, we also preferred the dCS minimum phase filter - by far. Best not to read (let alone trust in) audio reviews but listen for oneself.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

What was the filter number?

 

[acousticsguru]

What was the filter number?

Depends on the sampling rate! Filter 6 for three-digit sample rates (same as earlier generation dCS: minimum phase refers to the filter type with minimal/without pre-ringing), but Filter 5 for straight RBCD playback (haven't yet tried, AFAIR, but will next time - earlier generation dCS didn't have this "extra filter"). See page 39 in the manual:

http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Rossini-DAC-Manual-v1_0x.pdf

On a side note: for DSD playback, we liked the widest-band Filter 1 for sonically superior, and the softer-sounding Filter 4 for (sometimes even only slightly) lesser-quality native DSD recordings or analogue-to-DSD transfers (will have to do more in-depth listening, through).

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[Enatai252]

I am myself very interested in the ROSSINI to drive my BHSE tube amp + STax SR009 electrostatic set-up.

But, with the Stax SR009 that is already VERY detailed and sometimes a little too analytical, I really need a DAC that is not sounding Digital at all. I need to warm up a little the STAX to preserve musicality while providing all the micro details that the STAX can reproduce. So I wonder if the Rossini will meet that difficult goal ? Or may be a R2R/tube DAC will be a better alternative (TotalDAC D1-Tube ? Nagra HD DAC ? BRINKMANN Nyquist DAC ? Aries cera Kassandra ? ...)

Also, has someone compared the ROSSINI to the Esoteric K-03x (or K-01x) + G2 clock ? The new X series seems to have a much less digital sound than the previous versions ?

View attachment 30086

I pair the Stax 009/woo Wes combo with he Rossini and don't find the presentation fatiguing or sterile. I recommend trying a few DAC combos to see which you prefer. be sure to experiment with DXD or DSD upsample options and filters choices

I think you may find the Rossini to fit quite well...not because it adds any artificial warmth....just that it is one of the most natural sounding and resolving dac's I have heard. As mentioned the Lampi gets a lot of forum buzz but I have not personally heard it...at this price point take your time and try several. I personally am not an esoteric fan...great transport mechanism but have never loved their DACs...just my opinion

 

[bmichels]

I pair the Stax 009/woo Wes combo with he Rossini and don't find the presentation fatiguing or sterile. I recommend trying a few DAC combos to see which you prefer. be sure to experiment with DXD or DSD upsample options and filters choices

I think you may find the Rossini to fit quite well...not because it adds any artificial warmth....just that it is one of the most natural sounding and resolving dac's I have heard. As mentioned the Lampi gets a lot of forum buzz but I have not personally heard it...at this price point take your time and try several. I personally am not an esoteric fan...great transport mechanism but have never loved their DACs...just my opinion

Thanks to you all for those advices. I will organise a listening cession with my dealer and bring my BHSE + Stax009 to try with the Rossini.

PS : I believe that the WooWes may be warmer than the BHSE.