dCS vs Esoteric

[caesar]

Caesar,

Can you explain what you mean by "snappiness of PCM"? IMHO the snappiness of DSD in the Vivaldi is quite similar to that of the PCM. I can even add that particularly for the Aliavox dual layer hybrid CD/SACD recordings the SACD is "snappier" - much more energetic and livelier because it sounds very natural and with better transients. IMHO jazz and blues sound great in DSD!

I don't think I haven heard the Vivaldi 2.0, so maybe it matches my taste, unlike other DSD DACs I have heard. But, unfortunately, every dac that converts the signal to dsd has left me me wanting PCM (even despite the occasional glare of that medium!) ...

I know a recording engineer who has been doing it for 30+ years. He ripped the same albums to pcm 192/24 and dsd using $250K of equipment. Dsd sounded overly smooth to me, lacking the dynamic “snappiness” and being overly harmonically rich, soft, gentle, and smooth. Honestly, I felt bored.

(But just because I say that, doesn’t mean that it should take pleasure away from what others enjoy… I'm not trying to offend anyone, but just share experiences. It is all taste after all, so there’s no point arguing about what we like better or worse…)

In contrast, what I enjoyed about pcm on those professionally done vinyl rips - generally - was bottom end foundation was noticeably muscular and deep. Drums were punchy and detailed, bass line was thick, deep, and driving – just like in my favorite bars…in other words, the rhythm section sounded strong and stable - just right to what I am used to in my live clubs.

Also, the PCM rips had better images in space and less homogenization (possibly due to apodizing filters that guys like meridian and ayre have been championing).

I am not an audio writer, and even the best ones have trouble describing experiences...I wish we could transport into the same room so we can actually compare in person, but I hope that helps a little bit...

 

[microstrip]

I don't think I haven heard the Vivaldi 2.0, so maybe it matches my taste, unlike other DSD DACs I have heard. But, unfortunately, every dac that converts the signal to dsd has left me me wanting PCM (even despite the occasional glare of that medium!) ...

I know a recording engineer who has been doing it for 30+ years. He ripped the same albums to pcm 192/24 and dsd using $250K of equipment. Dsd sounded overly smooth to me, lacking the dynamic “snappiness” and being overly harmonically rich, soft, gentle, and smooth. Honestly, I felt bored.

(But just because I say that, doesn’t mean that it should take pleasure away from what others enjoy… I'm not trying to offend anyone, but just share experiences. It is all taste after all, so there’s no point arguing about what we like better or worse…)

In contrast, what I enjoyed about pcm on those professionally done vinyl rips - generally - was bottom end foundation was noticeably muscular and deep. Drums were punchy and detailed, bass line was thick, deep, and driving – just like in my favorite bars…in other words, the rhythm section sounded strong and stable - just right to what I am used to in my live clubs.

Also, the PCM rips had better images in space and less homogenization (possibly due to apodizing filters that guys like meridian and ayre have been championing).

I am not an audio writer, and even the best ones have trouble describing experiences...I wish we could transport into the same room so we can actually compare in person, but I hope that helps a little bit...

Can you give us more detail about the equipment used in the rips you refer and the DAC you have used to compare them?

I have some rips of a well known Shefield direct cut LP (Harry James) made by a friendly WBF member and the DSD had much less homogenization than the PCM!

It is why I feel our comments are particular and refer mainly to the implementation.

 

[caesar]

Can you give us more detail about the equipment used in the rips you refer and the DAC you have used to compare them?

I have some rips of a well known Shefield direct cut LP (Harry James) made by a friendly WBF member and the DSD had much less homogenization than the PCM!

It is why I feel our comments are particular and refer mainly to the implementation.

This was several years ago, so I don't remember all the details. But the patterns / sonic signature holds in all of my experiences since this salient story. I think the speakers were top of the hill dynaudios. DACs were playback designs (at the time it was the sh!t!), naim, chord, etc. I was a guest, so didn't want to intrude/ ask too many questions...

 

[caesar]

Out of curiosity, have you tried comparing PCM and dsd filters on the Vivaldi?

 

[caesar]

I don't want for this to come across as disrespectful towards anyone who worked on your rips, as there always could be different practices and biases. Yet the gentleman whose stuff I heard is "famous", uses top notch equipment, and really knows what he is doing.

 

[microstrip]

I don't want for this to come across as disrespectful towards anyone who worked on your rips, as there always could be different practices and biases. Yet the gentleman whose stuff I heard is "famous", uses top notch equipment, and really knows what he is doing.

No disrespect to anyone - we are just debating preferences and subjective opinions. But it is always nice to situate the opinions - particularly when we think so differently! Some months ago I was not interested at all in DSD. However, having now found that due to SACDs I can listen to high quality recordings of music I really enjoy my interest changed. I still do not have experience enough to have an opinion on the performance of DSD versus PCM in complex symphonic music.

 

[bonzo75]

No disrespect to anyone - we are just debating preferences and subjective opinions. But it is always nice to situate the opinions - particularly when we think so differently! Some months ago I was not interested at all in DSD. However, having now found that due to SACDs I can listen to high quality recordings of music I really enjoy my interest changed. I still do not have experience enough to have an opinion on the performance of DSD versus PCM in complex symphonic music.

Try DSD downloads from Channel Classics, especially their Mahler 2

 

[opus112]

For guys who know what they are looking at, what do you guys make of the internals of Chord DAVE? seems like a baby, but sounds fab by all accounts

I'd not say I really know what I'm looking at here but I'll take a punt. As ack said, it has a switching supply (bottom left). Most likely an off the shelf unit as designing switching supplies is a highly specialized art which you'd like to contract out. Top left is the mains switch under which looks to be the 'brick' which I referred to in my last post. On the power supply board itself just a single common-mode choke (bottom left of the PCB).

On the main PCB at the power inlet notice there's some passive power filtering achieved by a couple of bobbin-wound inductors and caps. This would be because off-the-shelf switchers have a substantial amount of output ripple (a couple of hundred mVs would be typical). There's a huge heatsink in the middle of the main board under which you'll likely find a power-hungry FPGA. Far right looks to be a headphone amp using discrete transistors.

 

[opus112]

I know a recording engineer who has been doing it for 30+ years. He ripped the same albums to pcm 192/24 and dsd using $250K of equipment. Dsd sounded overly smooth to me, lacking the dynamic “snappiness” and being overly harmonically rich, soft, gentle, and smooth. Honestly, I felt bored.

Even though I've only listened to DSD via my multibit DACs I concur with the 'smoothness' aspect. 'Soft' is the way Charles Hansen (of Ayre) has described it.

There are a couple of reasons for this technically. Firstly (as shown by Lipshitz in his 2001 AES paper) there's no way DSD can be correctly dithered which means there's going to be noise modulation, the noise 'floor' changes with signal level. Secondly there will be a system-dependent aspect to the 'softness' - not only does the audio band noise fluctuate with signal but so does the ultrasonic noise. This could generate varying amounts of IMD depending on what's downstream of a DSD DAC.

 

[microstrip]

Try DSD downloads from Channel Classics, especially their Mahler 2

Unfortunately I can not find technical details about the way mixing and mastering were carried for this recording. Was mastering carried during recording or in DXD format?

 

[sbo6]

I disagree: digital can be good enough or even better (less distortion), especially high-rate DSD into native DSD DACs or chipless, and especially paired with Tubes.

But, since the high-res way of doing things is quite new, we're still learning about how to build the equipment the proper way and how to set it all up, etc...

Digital audiophilia is an exercise in EMC.

X2 agree, I enjoy digital sonics and the experience over analog. For me, there's the novelty of vinyl only to be topped by the cost and quantity of components.

 

[Lee]

For guys who know what they are looking at, what do you guys make of the internals of Chord DAVE? seems like a baby, but sounds fab by all accounts

View attachment 29474

One of the best I have heard and I've heard most of them. The filtering tech works.

 

[Keith_W]

Personally, the only thing I can tell from the picture is the power supply, which appears to be switching-mode - I avoid those like the plague, and was a big turn-off in the Nadac.

I agree with you. Fortunately, the NADAC has a 12V DC input, so you can BYO power supply. I am powering my NADAC with an Uptone Audio JS-2 linear PSU, and it sounds great - a real step up over the standard PSU. HOWEVER ... the Uptone costs USD$999. The Merging designers decided to skimp on a part that costs $30-40 on a DAC they are selling for $11,000-12,000, and it has ended up costing the customer another $1000.

There are other things they have skimped on. A good clock, for example. A decent OCXO costs about $80-90, and the ultimate OCXO probably $300-400. Not included. I suspect the clock they are using probably costs a few dollars. How much will it cost to rectify this problem? An external clock, costing many thousands of dollars, which will provide inferior jitter performance compared to if the clock was located next to the DAC chip in the first place.

Then, there are other things baked into the design which I can do nothing about. The moment a better 8 channel DAC appears on the market, i'm out of here.

 

[bonzo75]

Unfortunately I can not find technical details about the way mixing and mastering were carried for this recording. Was mastering carried during recording or in DXD format?

I am not sure, I remember reading positive things then when I downloaded it over a year ago, I think Bruce B might know. The performance and recording is both excellent

 

[microstrip]

I am not sure, I remember reading positive things then when I downloaded it over a year ago, I think Bruce B might know. The performance and recording is both excellent

Probably, but using it (or many others) for comparisons of DACs and formats without knowing the exact details seems absurd. As far as I have found many DSD recordings go trough DXD and then a DXD-DSD transcription - although transcriptions of analog tapes are sometimes "pure" never processed DSD.

The debate on DACs has two sides - for musical purposes most of us probably want the one which optimizes redbook, for audiophile debates we focus mostly on Hi-Rez. I picked the Vivaldi for its exceptional CD playback performance - but the performance with other formats is also attracting my interest.

 

[bonzo75]

Probably, but using it (or many others) for comparisons of DACs and formats without knowing the exact details seems absurd. As far as I have found many DSD recordings go trough DXD and then a DXD-DSD transcription - although transcriptions of analog tapes are sometimes "pure" never processed DSD.

The debate on DACs has two sides - for musical purposes most of us probably want the one which optimizes redbook, for audiophile debates we focus mostly on Hi-Rez. I picked the Vivaldi for its exceptional CD playback performance - but the performance with other formats is also attracting my interest.

I don't use it to compare formats. Just mentioned it as a great source since you mentioned symphonic DSD music.

Actually, I don't compare formats much. There is some music that sounds better native PCM or DSD, some works upsampled, if you have a large library, you will have to adjust accordingly, instead of having one rule for all.

I have the CD/SACD of the above Mahler 2 as one of my demo discs for system demos.

 

[microstrip]

I don't use it to compare formats. Just mentioned it as a great source since you mentioned symphonic DSD music.

Actually, I don't compare formats much. There is some music that sounds better native PCM or DSD, some works upsampled, if you have a large library, you will have to adjust accordingly, instead of having one rule for all.

I have the CD/SACD of the above Mahler 2 as one of my demo discs for system demos.

The main point I was addressing is that many Hi-Rez recordings are available in several formats - it seems wise to try to pick the one having the highest probability of sounding best in our system! The Mahler 2 you refer is only available in redbook or DSD64, the choice seems easy!

 

[jfrech]

Out of curiosity, have you tried comparing PCM and dsd filters on the Vivaldi?

I have. You can clearly hear a difference. And what you prefer boils down to your system, your ears, your own tastes. Plus what music you're listening to, how it's recorded and even your mood.

I think the current crop of top end dacs like the Vivaldi and possibly the esoteric models (and I'm sure others) have address the deficiencies you're illustrating from your experiences.

 

[Al M.]

I have. You can clearly hear a difference. And what you prefer boils down to your system, your ears, your own tastes. Plus what music you're listening to, how it's recorded and even your mood.

I think the current crop of top end dacs like the Vivaldi and possibly the esoteric models (and I'm sure others) have address the deficiencies you're illustrating from your experiences.

As usual, it always comes down to implementation of the technology, not necessarily the type of technology itself. Same holds for the analog vs. digital debate.

Oh, analog is better, oh, DSD is better, oh, PCM is better…heard it all before. The question is: how much experience do you have with the current best implementation of each technology? And is the best current implementation the best theoretically possible? The answer to the latter would be generally: no, not yet.

 

[caesar]

Hi Madfloyd,
So where do you stand? Are you going to try the esoteric? Since you already like the dcs, are you just going to go for it? And if you don't try the esoteric, do you think you will regret it?

Also,
Do you like Dcs with PCM or dsd settings?

Good luck in your journey!