DCS Vivaldi

[LL21]

Interesting that it's taken over 3 decades for us died-in-the-wool analogheads to finally find digital more than just palatable, but in many cases on a par w/lp replay, and in some respects superior...
...2 years ago I invested in my current (and final) analog rig, the direct rim drive Trans Fi Audio Salvation tt/air bearing linear tracking Terminator T3pro arm/Soundsmith Straingauge SG200 cart w. Red Wine Audio batt psu...

...Now in the last 6 months I've moved to the Eera Tentation cdp (my final digital upgrade)...

...I'm now getting rel. equal enjoyment from both digital and analog. They both still sound fundamentally different of course (analog superior in the areas of tone and micro dynamics, digital superior in terms of low noise floor and macro dynamics), but there are enough qualities in common that are equally good on both players (speed, resolution, PRAT)...
...It seems that finally in the era of DCS Vivaldi, StahlTek, Zanden, Trinity, Eera etc digital has come of age, and can stand shoulder to shoulder (w/some jostling!) w/analog.

interesting observations for me, since i am a digital-only guy...thanks.

 

[Al M.]

@everybody

Berkeley Audio Design has been producing SOTA for many years now. I haven't yet heard their statement product but the DACII is one of the best DACs around. I have heard several TOL to have a very good idea of what is the SOTA ... the DACII is a superlative product. Unfortunately the audiophile tendency to equate price with performance would elicit the "For-its-price" condescension. An honest open-minded audition will quickly remove any doubts as for its superiority over many TOL products... This without the need for expensive femto-anything .

Hi Frantz,

I haven't heard many TOL DACs, but I own the Berkeley DACII. May I ask you in which areas you find it to be SOTA? I am impressed by its timbral and spatial resolution, for example, but I don't know how this compares with TOL DACs. I do know that top analog is still superior in timbral resolution (at least compared to 16/44 playback on the DACII), as is evident to me from listening to the best recordings on Peter A.'s outstanding system. This notwithstanding, I find CD playback over the DAC impressive, at a level that I had not thought possible from the format just a few years ago.

By the way, if I ever would go for a reference product, I'd go for Berkeley's statement product. It is the most expensive that I could, or would want to, afford.

 

[microstrip]

Hold your horses !! Not "synergy", careful component matching is what I am advocating. We are mostly in agreement aside from semantics (Nothing's perfect )

Frantz,

Are you addressing just gain, power, input and output impedance with the word matching?

@everybody

Berkeley Audio Design has been producing SOTA for many years now. I haven't yet heard their statement product but the DACII is one of the best DACs around. I have heard several TOL to have a very good idea of what is the SOTA ... the DACII is a superlative product. Unfortunately the audiophile tendency to equate price with performance would elicit the "For-its-price" condescension. An honest open-minded audition will quickly remove any doubts as for its superiority over many TOL products... This without the need for expensive femto-anything .

I will let you win easily on this one. As Berkeley Audio Design have found that their "magic" solder containing lead is a mandatory part of their design, people leaving in the European Community can not debate this point. But I would love to have your scientific explanation on the magic of lead in their solder, all other manufacturers managed to avoid it.

 

[still-one]

Frantz,

Are you addressing just gain, power, input and output impedance with the word matching?



I will let you win easily on this one. As Berkeley Audio Design have found that their "magic" solder containing lead is a mandatory part of their design, people leaving in the European Community can not debate this point. But I would love to have your scientific explanation on the magic of lead in their solder, all other manufacturers managed to avoid it.

I thought I read somewhere that lead in the solder helps prevent minute cracks that can occur over time. This is one reason why military and some other applications are excluded from the ban. Maybe they have found a substitute. I have no idea.

 

[microstrip]

I thought I read somewhere that lead in the solder helps prevent minute cracks that can occur over time. This is one reason why military and some other applications are excluded from the ban. Maybe they have found a substitute. I have not idea.

Yes. This link is now outdated but addresses this aspect. http://www.army.mil/article/40712/army-works-to-decrease-lead-free-electronic-components/.

Some consumer electronics manufacturers had plenty of reliability problems during the transition to lead free solder, but it is now a thing of the past.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi Frantz,

I haven't heard many TOL DACs, but I own the Berkeley DACII. May I ask you in which areas you find it to be SOTA? I am impressed by its timbral and spatial resolution, for example, but I don't know how this compares with TOL DACs. I do know that top analog is still superior in timbral resolution (at least compared to 16/44 playback on the DACII), as is evident to me from listening to the best recordings on Peter A.'s outstanding system. This notwithstanding, I find CD playback over the DAC impressive, at a level that I had not thought possible from the format just a few years ago.

By the way, if I ever would go for a reference product, I'd go for Berkeley's statement product. It is the most expensive that I could, or would want to, afford.

Hi

The BADA DAC II does most things right. I rarely indulge into audiophile-speak terms like"organic","pace"and the likes. For starters it is dead quiet. Not in the sense of hearing hiss or other nose. Most modern DACs are quiet. It is in the sense of the music delivery that simply comes out with no noise attached or added. This happens a lot in other form of medium. You raise the volume and you grind your teeth some.. The music is louder but comes with some "grunge" (here I had to go into audiophile-land ) we are supposing amplifier with adequate power .. Not so with the DAC II .. Music in all its glory, regardless of the volume setting of your preamp (or better use it directly to drive your amps). I have found many TOL DACs trying to smooth out the 5~7 Khz region to sound somewhat more analog. While many do succeed you get a sense of limited treble extension although they can and would measure flat almost everywhere. There is a rounding of the edge of instruments in that region for example. A solo from a violin, a very strident instrument BTW that we audiophiles have come to prefer to hear in a editorialized "sweet" way though our electronics, to continue a volin solo does if well recorded, comes out like it supposed to, with the BADA, many other DAC get part of it right especially in the lower register but up there you are supposed to hear the greet and stridency of the violin, many celebrated DACs go out missing by a footbal field length. Same with the mid-bass to me an extremely critical area , where the foundation of many music is. The BADA has it right. weight when necessary, articulation too. IT remains agile many DACS add some artificial weight to the mid-bass or simply eviscerate it, adding a bit of either dryness or a soft fuzzzy, overly warm midbass.. Not the BADA. Bass .. One of the best bass from a DAc IMO.. matching the best I have heard in from a DAC the Burmester CD/player DAC in that area, fro those who have heard the Burmester 061, that is not a small feat. (On that this remains in my view of TOL one of the 5 best DAC , i find it strange that Burmester has decided to drop their standalone DAC and rather go with a CD/DAC player instead , strange, same with Spectral as many are finding that there is no reason to use an expensive transport when a well tune PC works much better ). As for the sense of space it is as good as it gets, the instruments and performance venues are well reproduced.. CLear and with a sense of rectitude: Nothing added, change of venues from recording? Change of the sense of space. Contrary to many TOL who seems to have a wide soundstage when there should be a very small one ... We fall for this so often it is not funny: The audiophile cliche of "wide stoundstage" .. This soundstage often remains wide regardless of the relative size of the venues. Seductive? maybe. Realistic? Not at all.

I want to hear the BADA Reference to see what it brings to the table at almost 3 times the price ...

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz,

Are you addressing just gain, power, input and output impedance with the word matching?



I will let you win easily on this one. As Berkeley Audio Design have found that their "magic" solder containing lead is a mandatory part of their design, people leaving in the European Community can not debate this point. But I would love to have your scientific explanation on the magic of lead in their solder, all other manufacturers managed to avoid it.

Not sure I understand what their magic solder is... I know from experience that the solder used in circuits has a strong bearing on their reliability. Don't know what it does to their sound.

I am addressing careful matching of equipment. The objective ones are a start. They must be observed and adhered to. Even if non-adherence seems pleasing at first. No! I am talking about matching the equipment carefully in term of sonic attributes. You may have an amplifier that is good with your speakers almost everywhere but tend to be a little bright (with your chosen) speakers in the region of say 5~10 KHz .. You use that with most good DACs you may find yourself hearing a rather bright sound reproduction.. Digital is mostly linear in this region contrary to many phono pre-amp that have a small dip in this region to make sure tics and pops are not overwhelming. Just an example there are many others... You may call this synergy, I call it matching. Semantics ...

 

[Al M.]

Hi

The BADA DAC II does most things right. I rarely indulge into audiophile-speak terms like"organic","pace"and the likes. For starters it is dead quiet. Not in the sense of hearing hiss or other nose. Most modern DACs are quiet. It is in the sense of the music delivery that simply comes out with no noise attached or added. This happens a lot in other form of medium. You raise the volume and you grind your teeth some.. The music is louder but comes with some "grunge" (here I had to go into audiophile-land ) we are supposing amplifier with adequate power .. Not so with the DAC II .. Music in all its glory, regardless of the volume setting of your preamp (or better use it directly to drive your amps). I have found many TOL DACs trying to smooth out the 5~7 Khz region to sound somewhat more analog. While many do succeed you get a sense of limited treble extension although they can and would measure flat almost everywhere. There is a rounding of the edge of instruments in that region for example. A solo from a violin, a very strident instrument BTW that we audiophiles have come to prefer to hear in a editorialized "sweet" way though our electronics, to continue a volin solo does if well recorded, comes out like it supposed to, with the BADA, many other DAC get part of it right especially in the lower register but up there you are supposed to hear the greet and stridency of the violin, many celebrated DACs go out missing by a footbal field length. Same with the mid-bass to me an extremely critical area , where the foundation of many music is. The BADA has it right. weight when necessary, articulation too. IT remains agile many DACS add some artificial weight to the mid-bass or simply eviscerate it, adding a bit of either dryness or a soft fuzzzy, overly warm midbass.. Not the BADA. Bass .. One of the best bass from a DAc IMO.. matching the best I have heard in from a DAC the Burmester CD/player DAC in that area, fro those who have heard the Burmester 061, that is not a small feat. (On that this remains in my view of TOL one of the 5 best DAC , i find it strange that Burmester has decided to drop their standalone DAC and rather go with a CD/DAC player instead , strange, same with Spectral as many are finding that there is no reason to use an expensive transport when a well tune PC works much better ). As for the sense of space it is as good as it gets, the instruments and performance venues are well reproduced.. CLear and with a sense of rectitude: Nothing added, change of venues from recording? Change of the sense of space. Contrary to many TOL who seems to have a wide soundstage when there should be a very small one ... We fall for this so often it is not funny: The audiophile cliche of "wide stoundstage" .. This soundstage often remains wide regardless of the relative size of the venues. Seductive? maybe. Realistic? Not at all.

I want to hear the BADA Reference to see what it brings to the table at almost 3 times the price ...

Hi Frantz,

thank you for your detailed characterizations of what in your view the BADA DAC II does right. I agree with you on the lack of digital noise or digital 'harshness'. Peter A. has commented on the lack of fatigue that he experiences from my system, a big complement from an analog-only listener with top gear. At the same time it is true, as you say, that the DAC captures the natural stridency, and I would add, natural hardness, of instruments. I am always surprised at how hard instruments, especially brass, sound live, except in the smoothest sounding venues. One of my best recordings is avantgarde music for an ensemble for 23 players (Hunts & Forms by Wolfgang Rihm on DGG -- yes, that label, surprisingly). There is no digital harshness as with my old Wadia 12 DAC, where there had been some, the natural hardness is the same, and on top of that the brass has a sharper timbre with the BADA DAC that is very believable. On the other hand, on some other brass recordings that sharpness of timbre is not found; the Berkeley DAC is not a one-trick pony in terms of timbral color but simply appears to reproduce what is on the recording.

As for mid-bass/bass articulation and agility I want to add that the Berkeley DAC has excellent pace or, as the British would say, rhythm & timing. Performance in this area has been a persistent problem in early digital, see also these articles in Stereophile from 1992:

Pace, Rhythm & Dynamics

Pace & Rhythm: One Listener's Lament

The rhythm & timing problem was so bad that despite its, in timbral terms, harsh and 'lousy' sound the Marantz CD80 was the machine about 25 years ago that several analog fans bought in the old store in The Netherlands where I also got a good part of my system, because it was the only CD player that in this area was at least not hopelessly far off their Linn Sondek turntables.

My old Wadia 12 DAC finally got rhythm & timing on jazz right, or at least quite right (and as most digital, it was strictly dependent for this on good power conditioning). Yet it still could not really rock. The Berkeley DAC can, and to my ears it rocks and swings just as hard as the best turntables (on 16/44 CD, no less), with the same infectious 'foot-tapping' quality where applicable. Quite an achievement given the longstanding inherent weakness of digital in this area.

I agree with you on the characteristics of spatial representation through the DAC, they have been noted by Peter A. as well upon audition of my system.

 

[Al M.]

In conclusion, I'm now getting rel. equal enjoyment from both digital and analog. They both still sound fundamentally different of course (analog superior in the areas of tone and micro dynamics, digital superior in terms of low noise floor and macro dynamics), but there are enough qualities in common that are equally good on both players (speed, resolution, PRAT) that I don't get restless as I did before when listening to cd's hankering ASAP to listen to lp's.

Interesting that you should mention micro-dynamics to be superior on analog, and macro-dynamics to be superior on digital. I am not so sure about the former, and regarding macro-dynamics I am convinced that the best analog is incredibly good in this area, the rest of the system allowing.

Just a few weeks ago I listened to Peter A.'s all-analog system again, and both the micro- and macro-dynamics were outstanding. The dynamic force of his system is riveting in every aspect, and the brass attacks in the Pink Panther theme song (yes, that one!) were heartstopping (we listened at loud volume). How can this be, with LP having a nominal dynamic range of just 60-70 dB? Given that, Peter and I agreed that nominal dynamic range is meaningless. The proof is in the listening. Conversely, this also indirectly shows that the nominal dynamic range of CD is more than enough, even though it could be argued that theoretically it isn't.


Edit: I should add that I have rarely heard a system as dynamic as mine, so I am not easily impressed. So if I found not just the micro-dynamics but also the macro-dynamics of Peter's all-analog system riveting, then yes, count me mightily impressed! In fact, on the best recordings his system might be even more dynamic than mine, not sure at this point.

 

[microstrip]

Not sure I understand what their magic solder is... I know from experience that the solder used in circuits has a strong bearing on their reliability. Don't know what it does to their sound.

I am addressing careful matching of equipment. The objective ones are a start. They must be observed and adhered to. Even if non-adherence seems pleasing at first. No! I am talking about matching the equipment carefully in term of sonic attributes. You may have an amplifier that is good with your speakers almost everywhere but tend to be a little bright (with your chosen) speakers in the region of say 5~10 KHz .. You use that with most good DACs you may find yourself hearing a rather bright sound reproduction.. Digital is mostly linear in this region contrary to many phono pre-amp that have a small dip in this region to make sure tics and pops are not overwhelming. Just an example there are many others... You may call this synergy, I call it matching. Semantics ...

If you had read WBF more carefully about the BADA DAC you should to know about "magic" solder - it all there http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2794-Berkeley-vs-DCS-Debussy-vs-etc&p=40229&viewfull=1#post40229

It is nice to know your examples of matching are just a minuscule subset of what is needed to have a synergistic system. And yes, synergy includes room, speakers, electronics, cables and power . "Any part done differently could have stripped away some of that magic. It was an incredibly synergistic system. " (Randy Tomlinson words taken for an old HP's Workshop".)

 

[spiritofmusic]

Al, I may well be getting my micro and macro dynamics knickers in a twist ! I have still have some issues w/digital which alas may never be resolved, esp. dynamics like the crack of snare drums, and something in the digital representation of drums never sounds quite right to me. My Eera cdp is getting me quite a bit closer to the best of analog, but it's still no cigar. And after hearing quite a bit of hi rez/streaming, I don't believe it's the RBCD 16/44.1 standard that is to blame. But in many other respects, I do believe digital can hold it's head up, and not just at the stratospheric entry ticket of Vivaldi etc.

 

[FrantzM]

If you had read WBF more carefully about the BADA DAC you should to know about "magic" solder - it all there http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2794-Berkeley-vs-DCS-Debussy-vs-etc&p=40229&viewfull=1#post40229

It is nice to know your examples of matching are just a minuscule subset of what is needed to have a synergistic system. And yes, synergy includes room, speakers, electronics, cables and power . "Any part done differently could have stripped away some of that magic. It was an incredibly synergistic system. " (Randy Tomlinson words taken for an old HP's Workshop".)

micros

don't care much about "magic solder" and the likes but thanks for the link.

 

[jfrech]

John Quick from dCS came by my home today along with my dCS dealer, Casey from Ne Plus Ultra. Lot's of listening, mostly digital and some vinyl. We had a fascinating discussion on digital filters, how dCS develops them (they write their own code here). I also mentioned how the dCS Vivaldi DAC and Trans clearly improved the system...but the clock was very profound for me and a bit unexpected. dCS is using a new clocking architecture, better power supplies and better vibration/chassis.

We then listened to filters. DSD F1 and F3. I had been using F1 but now prefer F3 for DSD. A touch less hardness, a touch more resolution comes through. Maybe a slightly warming to the sound.

For redbook, we went back and forth from up sampling to DSD and DXD. I decided DXD provided more air, a bit more focus, and slightly more cohesive sound. Then we tried F4, F5, F6 on DXD. F5 gave a quicker dynamic things started and stopped faster. F4 and F6 a slightly wider stage but slightly more reserved. In the end all the filters sound good...system matching, recording quality, and listener preference really dictates what's best.

We then moved to vinyl, playing kenny burrel midnight blue on Music Matters 33 and the Analog Productions 45 version. The 33 was better...the 45 sounded a step slower in comparison and a bit less dynamic. Go figure.

Net net, I am sticking to my prior posts about digital vs vinyl. The software now really dictates ultimate sound quality...both formats are enjoyable.

I also recently tweaked a few settings on my vinyl (leveled...cold weather must have settled something) and very slight tweak to VTF. Again assuming the cold weather effects...

My Vinyl is sounding better then ever...but the move to DSD F3 stepped the digital up a notch too.

 

[LL21]

John Quick from dCS came by my home today along with my dCS dealer, Casey from Ne Plus Ultra. Lot's of listening, mostly digital and some vinyl. We had a fascinating discussion on digital filters, how dCS develops them (they write their own code here). I also mentioned how the dCS Vivaldi DAC and Trans clearly improved the system...but the clock was very profound for me and a bit unexpected. dCS is using a new clocking architecture, better power supplies and better vibration/chassis.

We then listened to filters. DSD F1 and F3. I had been using F1 but now prefer F3 for DSD. A touch less hardness, a touch more resolution comes through. Maybe a slightly warming to the sound.

For redbook, we went back and forth from up sampling to DSD and DXD. I decided DXD provided more air, a bit more focus, and slightly more cohesive sound. Then we tried F4, F5, F6 on DXD. F5 gave a quicker dynamic things started and stopped faster. F4 and F6 a slightly wider stage but slightly more reserved. In the end all the filters sound good...system matching, recording quality, and listener preference really dictates what's best.

We then moved to vinyl, playing kenny burrel midnight blue on Music Matters 33 and the Analog Productions 45 version. The 33 was better...the 45 sounded a step slower in comparison and a bit less dynamic. Go figure.

Net net, I am sticking to my prior posts about digital vs vinyl. The software now really dictates ultimate sound quality...both formats are enjoyable.

I also recently tweaked a few settings on my vinyl (leveled...cold weather must have settled something) and very slight tweak to VTF. Again assuming the cold weather effects...

My Vinyl is sounding better then ever...but the move to DSD F3 stepped the digital up a notch too.

Great read...always fun to meet the manufacturers, particularly of products where you are passionate. I have had great experiences communicating with CJ, Gryphon and Zanden, and have had brief opportunities to meet Transparent and Wilson. Also great to hear you hold firm to your earlier observations about source being the primary determinant now instead of vinyl vs digital...great stuff!

 

[ksalno]

This forum has been quiet for the last 6 months, so I thought I would try to start it up again. I just took delivery of the Vivaldi DAC today and have the Upsampler on order (2 weeks delivery time). I have a couple of questions for Vivaldi owners.

1. What did you find was necessary for burn-in time? How many hours of use before the DAC is at its best?

2. Is the firmware user upgradeable? Mine is at the current version, 1.1 but if a new version comes out in the future, can I download and upgrade the DAC myself? What is the process? The manual is vague on this topic.

Thanks

 

[CKKeung]

2. Is the firmware user upgrade-able? Mine is at the current version, 1.1 but if a new version comes out in the future, can I download and upgrade the DAC myself? What is the process? The manual is vague on this topic.
Thanks

The software upgrade is usually via official dealers but not as a website download.
It's in form of a CDROM. Just play it with the dCS components and the upgrade will be done.

 

[jfrech]

This forum has been quiet for the last 6 months, so I thought I would try to start it up again. I just took delivery of the Vivaldi DAC today and have the Upsampler on order (2 weeks delivery time). I have a couple of questions for Vivaldi owners.

1. What did you find was necessary for burn-in time? How many hours of use before the DAC is at its best?

2. Is the firmware user upgradeable? Mine is at the current version, 1.1 but if a new version comes out in the future, can I download and upgrade the DAC myself? What is the process? The manual is vague on this topic.

Thanks

I have v1.02 on my dac and 1.1 for trans and clock. I agree your dealer should do this for you. But there are menu options

Congrats. You have a killer dac and soon upsampler !

 

[BrazCole]

I received yesterday my 3 boxes Vivaldi without the Upsampler as I prefer use my CDs instead of computer. The difference from my 3 boxes Paganini was huge. The sound is more... everything. More relaxed, more 3D, more bass, more body. I could say that the difference I felt when I changed from Puccini to the Paganini I felt now.
In the past I had the Paganini Upsampler, that I sold a couple of months later because I didn't feel any difference using it to running a CD.
Listening to the Jazz became even more pleasure. Classical music and rock as well.

 

[jfrech]

I received yesterday my 3 boxes Vivaldi without the Upsampler as I prefer use my CDs instead of computer. The difference from my 3 boxes Paganini was huge. The sound is more... everything. More relaxed, more 3D, more bass, more body. I could say that the difference I felt when I changed from Puccini to the Paganini I felt now.
In the past I had the Paganini Upsampler, that I sold a couple of months later because I didn't feel any difference using it to running a CD.
Listening to the Jazz became even more pleasure. Classical music and rock as well.

Congratulations ! It gets better with some burn in time...every time I listen to my 3 Vivaldi pieces...I am just happy. And I'm a vinyl bigot...The Vivaldi and a great SACD or DSD download can amaze. I haven't tried the upsampler yet either...but suspect I will soon. My dealer has a Scarlatti...all 4 pieces..and up sampling cds sounds better to me on his system...

 

[ksalno]

Congratulations ! It gets better with some burn in time...every time I listen to my 3 Vivaldi pieces...I am just happy. And I'm a vinyl bigot...The Vivaldi and a great SACD or DSD download can amaze. I haven't tried the upsampler yet either...but suspect I will soon. My dealer has a Scarlatti...all 4 pieces..and up sampling cds sounds better to me on his system...

I have only two pieces, the DAC and the Upsampler. I have an Esoteric K-01 for spinning discs, which if fine for now. I may try the clock at some point but for me the Upsampler made a huge difference and it saved me from having to get a separate device for streaming music from my NAS or the Internet . You should definitely give a listen to the Upsampler in your system and make sure it is properly setup.