DCS Rossini

[jfrech]

I was very impressed with the Rossini DAC, but, as an analog guy, I would really need to do a direct comparison with a good analog front end in the same system over a period of time to know how far digital has come. A few years ago a group of us compared the latest Berkeley Alpha DAC with a Basis turntable and it seemed everyone preferred the latter. I do think the latest dCS systems have taken digital much further.

Hi Peter, I understand and support your point of view. I think the Rossini may and likely the Vivaldi stack will close that gap...but its dependent on the recording. Seems like my best analog is recorded to tape then carefully mastered to vinyl. My best digital is also to tape then if it's carefully mastered to DSD or hi rez pcm then it's pretty spectacular too. At least to the point you don't worry so much about the format and each format seems to have some strengths/weaknesses that complicate "a best." However, the best digital is usually more expensive than a top notch vinyl rig. And you can get great vinyl for not much $$'s...great digital costs more and requires the best in power cords/conditioners/isolation to really shine. It's hard to beat a vinyl based system like yours. Especially given your software collection.

And I think this comes to the point why I like my digital so much...my software is different for the most part. It opens up more music available for me to listen to that I enjoy...

 

[jfrech]

Hi John...btw I notice you have Goldfinger now how does that compare to the Atlas?

Probably best for another thread...or a pm. But they are both fantastic. But different. Both killer dynamics. That Atlas has more power and majesty. The GF more beauty and grace. Honestly, if I had a table that would take 2 arms and 2 cartridges I'd want em both...the music dictating which I prefer. I sold my Atlas for $4500 and I'm kicking myself. But I won't sell the GF anytime soon...it's a for sure keeper.

 

[MadFloyd]

Hi Peter, I understand and support your point of view. I think the Rossini may and likely the Vivaldi stack will close that gap...but its dependent on the recording. Seems like my best analog is recorded to tape then carefully mastered to vinyl. My best digital is also to tape then if it's carefully mastered to DSD or hi rez pcm then it's pretty spectacular too. At least to the point you don't worry so much about the format and each format seems to have some strengths/weaknesses that complicate "a best." However, the best digital is usually more expensive than a top notch vinyl rig. And you can get great vinyl for not much $$'s...great digital costs more and requires the best in power cords/conditioners/isolation to really shine. It's hard to beat a vinyl based system like yours. Especially given your software collection.

And I think this comes to the point why I like my digital so much...my software is different for the most part. It opens up more music available for me to listen to that I enjoy...

I'm not sure that the best digital is more expensive than a top notch vinyl rig. Hard to get anything decent in vinyl for less than 50-75k.....

 

[PeterA]

I'm not sure that the best digital is more expensive than a top notch vinyl rig. Hard to get anything decent in vinyl for less than 50-75k.....

Interesting comment, perhaps left for another thread.

 

[Al M.]

I'm not sure that the best digital is more expensive than a top notch vinyl rig. Hard to get anything decent in vinyl for less than 50-75k.....

My digital rig is $ 8K (transport, DAC, connecting cable). While it does not play near the standard of a dCS Rossini, it is still rather excellent. I think it would be hard to find a vinyl rig at the same price that could compete with it.

Vinyl at the upper price levels is a different issue, of course. There it tends to set the standard for digital to beat.

 

[bmichels]

Looks like the Rossini will support ROON as well as MQA ! This will be major upgrades

 

[jfrech]

Looks like the Rossini will support ROON as well as MQA ! This will be major upgrades

I had heard Roon is on the way...did not hear about MQA ! I suppose Vivaldi will get this support also...?

 

[Stereophonic]

Anybody needs to put the output voltage to 6v?

 

[caesar]

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!

 

[jfrech]

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!

What ?!? Wow...I can't believe that's your impression of that article. Have you ever heard a Rossini or Vavaldi set to PCM vs DSD?

dCS sound fantastic on PCM. Some people prefer DSD when up sampling.

 

[JimmyS]

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!

I cannot understand how you have drawn this conclusion from the review. I own one, so I have the benefit of being able to use my own ears rather than trying to hear it through printed words (note, I primarily use the DXD setting not the DSD setting)

Its sound will not suit everyone, as we all hear different, but I can say that I no longer care about analog vs digital. I grab an LP, I select a file to play, and either way I enjoy the music.

 

[caesar]

I cannot understand how you have drawn this conclusion from the review. I own one, so I have the benefit of being able to use my own ears rather than trying to hear it through printed words (note, I primarily use the DXD setting not the DSD setting)

Its sound will not suit everyone, as we all hear different, but I can say that I no longer care about analog vs digital. I grab an LP, I select a file to play, and either way I enjoy the music.

Gentlemen, I have been very busy, but I will give the latest dcs models a fair listen when I find more time. But I find it very telling to guys who love PCM that when a reviewer clearly states that didn't like the PCM filters as much and had everything reprocessed to dsd.

Furthermore, it seems everyone who listens to newer dcs models is up-converting to dsd...of course I could be wrong, but it could also be a very strong signal to guys who like PCM to check chord, totaldac, esoteric, Berkeley, etc.

 

[caesar]

P.s. What is the difference between dsd and dxd? thanks

 

[microstrip]

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!

You must re-read the review - IMHO no way anyone can arrive at your conclusion from that review. DSD was preferred for CD in some CDs, not for HiRez PCM. And in the second page JA choose PCM for the CD he has recorded himself.

Although my experience is with the Vivaldi, the choice of mode and filter is largely due to user preference and equipment being used - a different set of cables can change our preference. Please look at the list of equipment used by JA in the review - it can explain in part his findings.

IMHO JA says it all when he says " The combination of the dCS Rossini Player and Clock produced what was, overall, the best sound from digital I have experienced in my system" http://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-rossini-player-rossini-clock-page-2#UlS3R4x1X54gftD4.99

 

[jfrech]

P.s. What is the difference between dsd and dxd? thanks

DXD is PCM. Plenty of dCS owners prefer dCS doing PCM vs DSD. It's more incisive. So just because that reviewer likes DSD (which to me sounds more organized/better flow)...doesn't mean others don't prefer DXD.

And if you snuck into my room, changed the setting from DSD to DXD, I bet it'd take a while for me to notice...it's not night and day...they both sound terrific.

 

[microstrip]

(...) And if you snuck into my room, changed the setting from DSD to DXD, I bet it'd take a while for me to notice...it's not night and day...they both sound terrific.

IMHO the differences are not so evident as people could imagine from reading the reviews. In the long term I seem to prefer some settings, but this time it is not a nigh-and-day difference, just an extra-fine tuning. If someone told me that I would have to freeze the options of the Vivaldi system I would ask for at less a couple of months after setting my whole system to make a more systematic listening. And yes, most times it sounds so interesting that we forget to listen critically.

 

[jfrech]

IMHO the differences are not so evident as people could imagine from reading the reviews. In the long term I seem to prefer some settings, but this time it is not a nigh-and-day difference, just an extra-fine tuning. If someone told me that I would have to freeze the options of the Vivaldi system I would ask for at less a couple of months after setting my whole system to make a more systematic listening. And yes, most times it sounds so interesting that we forget to listen critically.

+1 Well said !

 

[PeterA]

Gentlemen, I have been very busy, but I will give the latest dcs models a fair listen when I find more time. But I find it very telling to guys who love PCM that when a reviewer clearly states that didn't like the PCM filters as much and had everything reprocessed to dsd.

Furthermore, it seems everyone who listens to newer dcs models is up-converting to dsd...of course I could be wrong, but it could also be a very strong signal to guys who like PCM to check chord, totaldac, esoteric, Berkeley, etc.

Caesar, it is worth the time to listen to these newer dCS models. When I auditioned the Rossini, it was PCM and it sounded fantastic. And in a direct comparison to the Berkeley Ref DAC, I preferred the Rossini by quite a bit. I also directly compared the Vivaldi to the NADAC, in DSD, and preferred the Vivaldi.

We all have our preferences, and so does the reviewer. No surprises there.

 

[Al M.]

DXD is PCM. Plenty of dCS owners prefer dCS doing PCM vs DSD. It's more incisive. So just because that reviewer likes DSD (which to me sounds more organized/better flow)...doesn't mean others don't prefer DXD.

I am highly skeptical of the argument of organic flow, even though I readily admit that I have used it in the past myself at times. When I listen to live unamplified music sitting close-up, the incisive sound and tremendous amount of timbral detail easily can give the impression of a 'disrupted flow', a flow that can appear more readily to be present in the more homogenized and/or polished sound from some home systems/recordings. If I have the choice between flow and incisiveness, I'll pick the latter every time. I guess that makes me firmly a PCM guy. My current digital playback is strictly PCM anyway.

Yet I'll admit it is all a matter of perspective. When sitting further back in the hall, live music mostly appears more 'flowy' than when sitting upfront. Also, I can perfectly see why for some very melodic pieces a more mellow, flowing presentation may be attractive. Yet it would not be my personal preference if I have the choice. But to everyone their own taste of course.

 

[PeterA]

I am highly skeptical of the argument of organic flow, even though I readily admit that I have used it in the past myself at times. When I listen to live unamplified music sitting close-up, the incisive sound and tremendous amount of timbral detail easily can give the impression of a 'disrupted flow', a flow that can appear more readily to be present in the more homogenized and/or polished sound from some home systems/recordings. If I have the choice between flow and incisiveness, I'll pick the latter every time. I guess that makes me firmly a PCM guy. My current digital playback is strictly PCM anyway.

Yet I'll admit it is all a matter of perspective. When sitting further back in the hall, live music mostly appears more 'flowy' than when sitting upfront. Also, I can perfectly see why for some very melodic pieces a more mellow, flowing presentation may be attractive. Yet it would not be my personal preference if I have the choice. But to everyone their own taste of course.

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.