dCS Varese short review

[Ron Resnick]

What does it mean to sound like a great solid-state DAC? Is there something missing in comparison to a great tube DAC, in your view, and is there something gained?

In general:

Solid-state DAC has a bit more resolution and possibly a bit more dynamic slam.

Tube DAC has more liquidity and a bit more warmth.

 

[Al M.]

In general:

Solid-state DAC has a bit more resolution and possibly a bit more dynamic slam.

Tube DAC has more liquidity and a bit more warmth.

Thank you, this helps to better understand your impressions of the Varese.

 

[Elliot G.]

So after 42 pages let’s summarize what we have learned
1- tubes sound different than transistors when used in dacs
2- the old dcs sounded nothing like the new dcs but all those who have them are loving the new piece
that sounds nothing like the old one

So am I to deduce that one of the two that sound nothing alike must be wrong or are they both wrong? Since they both can’t be right!

 

[bonzo75]

In general:

Solid-state DAC has a bit more resolution and possibly a bit more dynamic slam.

Tube DAC has more liquidity and a bit more warmth.

This is quite a poor generalisation

 

[PeterA]

Yes, I know you've been traumatized ever since I was polite about your solid-state on Magico the very first time you were hosting me in person.

I prefer honesty and the sharing of a candid impression. It is how we learn.

 

[Al M.]

This is quite a poor generalisation

Fully agreed, but it gives some insight into Ron's assessment of the Varese.

 

[tima]

As a hobbyist, I am interested in reading, from those who have actually made meaningful comparisons, how they sound different playing music. If someone doesn’t like one of them as much for a specific reason, I would be interested in reading why. You won’t get that from reading reviews or marketing promotional material.

I winced a little reading that. Some reviewers (I think myself included) do provide, or attempt to provide, meaningful comparisons. Granted that "meaningful" may vary from reader to reader as does the relevancy to the reader of the compared-to component.

One aspect of a "meaningful" comparison is having the products compared be in the same system with the same music and the swap between components as the only variable. Comparing "similar" products in different systems is not on the same level as a formal review, although that may be the only comparison available to a hobbyist.

I agree that describing specific differences in sound -- rather than vague generalisations -- is very important. Ideally those specific differences can be described in specific music, so it is at least possible for someone to listen what their system tells them about those same musical passages.

Typically in review comparisons you should not find statements such as "I like X but not Y". The sonic descriptions, if done well, should speak for themselves and allow the reader to decide for themselves.

 

[PeterA]

I winced a little reading that. Some reviewers (I think myself included) do provide, or attempt to provide, meaningful comparisons. Granted that "meaningful" may vary from reader to reader as does the relevancy to the reader of the compared-to component.

One aspect of a "meaningful" comparison is having the products compared be in the same system with the same music and the swap between components as the only variable. Comparing "similar" products in different systems is not on the same level as a formal review, although that may be the only comparison available to a hobbyist.

I agree that describing specific differences in sound -- rather than vague generalisations -- is very important. Ideally those specific differences can be described in specific music, so it is at least possible for someone to listen what their system tells them about those same musical passages.

Typically in review comparisons you should not find statements such as "I like X but not Y". The sonic descriptions, if done well, should speak for themselves and allow the reader to decide for themselves.

Tim, perhaps some of your reviews are an exception, but generally I do not read many reviews in which the reader is told that one component is better than another and the reason why. Do we not regularly complain that there are not enough direct comparisons in reviews?

 

[tima]

Tim, perhaps some of your reviews are an exception, but generally I do not read many reviews in which the reader is told that one component is better than another and the reason why

I try to avoid that. Is that what you want -- declaration of a winner ? Genuine question, not criticism.

 

[PeterA]

I try to avoid that. Is that what you want -- declaration of a winner ? Genuine question, not criticism.

If a reviewer states that he does not like the sound of a component, I would like him to explain why. That was my prior point. I do not, or extremely rarely, read in reviews that a review does not like a component when directly compared to another.

I would like to read a review in which a reviewer or a hobbyist directly compares the Wadax stack to the dCS stack, describe what he hears, and then express his preference and the reasons. The reader may agree or disagree, but if he cannot do the direct comparison himself, such a review would be helpful. For example, does someone prefer the sound of new flagship Magico speaker to the previous one? If so why or why not?

I do understand your approach of describing what you hear and then letting the reader decide. One approaches tells the reader more about the reviewer and his taste than does the other approach. I like that Bonzo is so clear in his preferences for dual FLH over other types. He describes the difference, and why he prefers one over the other.

 

[tima]

I do understand your approach of describing what you hear and then letting the reader decide. One approaches tells the reader more about the reviewer and his taste than does the other approach

Yes.

We were talking about meaningful comparisons within a review and I described how I understood that. Imo the focus of a review is the review product. I include a comparison as a way to give insight about the review product.

I understand your perspective. You want opinion and the reasons for it. Nothing wrong with that. I see the job of the review is to be expository -- a report, not an editorial or shoot-out. I inject my opinion by choosing the component I write about. I won't deny that my enthusiasm for a review product can come through ... or not.

We are way off the thread topic -- maybe we should pursue this elsewhere. If you start a thread I will participate.

 

[microstrip]

I winced a little reading that. Some reviewers (I think myself included) do provide, or attempt to provide, meaningful comparisons. Granted that "meaningful" may vary from reader to reader as does the relevancy to the reader of the compared-to component.

Direct comparisons are entertaining, but seldom meaningful. Most of the time the reader does not have direct experience with the equipment that is being used - how many of your readers have proper experience with Lamm or Atmasphere? 5% of them? Or have experience with your vintage speakers?

One aspect of a "meaningful" comparison is having the products compared be in the same system with the same music and the swap between components as the only variable. Comparing "similar" products in different systems is not on the same level as a formal review, although that may be the only comparison available to a hobbyist.

IMO this was interesting twenty or more years ago, when equipment had more noticeable coloration and strong sound signatures. Today, the differences are more obscure and hard to predict - matching dominates the comparison most of the time.

Direct compares in proper conditions are almost impossible to carry, unless the reviewer has access to proper measuring equipment - not cell phones ! Reviewers seldom refer exact loudness levels used in the comparisons.

I agree that describing specific differences in sound -- rather than vague generalisations -- is very important. Ideally those specific differences can be described in specific music, so it is at least possible for someone to listen what their system tells them about those same musical passages.

Yes - it is very important to refer to exact recordings.

Typically in review comparisons you should not find statements such as "I like X but not Y". The sonic descriptions, if done well, should speak for themselves and allow the reader to decide for themselves.

If a reviewer does not like X he should not review it. Just MO, YMMV.

 

[microstrip]

I try to avoid that. Is that what you want -- declaration of a winner ? Genuine question, not criticism.

We can't fight it - most people want a winner. It is like in sports. But I support your point of avoiding reference to a winner.

 

[JiminGa]

Yes.

We were talking about meaningful comparisons within a review and I described how I understood that. Imo the focus of a review is the review product. I include a comparison as a way to give insight about the review product.

I understand your perspective. You want opinion and the reasons for it. Nothing wrong with that. I see the job of the review is to be expository -- a report, not an editorial or shoot-out. I inject my opinion by choosing the component I write about. I won't deny that my enthusiasm for a review product can come through ... or not.

We are way off the thread topic -- maybe we should pursue this elsewhere. If you start a thread I will participate.

Comparisons are certainly fair but no one can declare a “winner” between 2 well made products. Every single person seeks something a little different and (despite the name of this forum) it’s not possible to come to any universal object declaration. Prior to a little bout of throat cancer I used to love and collect cult Burgundies. Everyone wanted to know (and made purchases based upon) Robert Parker’s rating of them. I didn’t give a rip because while I greatly respected his tasting skills in my opinion he had no actual “taste”. He was a good enough writer that I could get a good idea about whether I would like something based upon his verbiage as I learned to connect his words to certain taste characteristics. Same with audio reviewers. No one is after exactly what I am after. If any of them declared something as the “best” it would not mean anything to me. A few of them are good enough writers to let me gain some understanding about the products sonic characteristics.

 

[Rexp]

Comparisons are certainly fair but no one can declare a “winner” between 2 well made products. Every single person seeks something a little different and (despite the name of this forum) it’s not possible to come to any universal object declaration. Prior to a little bout of throat cancer I used to love and collect cult Burgundies. Everyone wanted to know (and made purchases based upon) Robert Parker’s rating of them. I didn’t give a rip because while I greatly respected his tasting skills in my opinion he had no actual “taste”. He was a good enough writer that I could get a good idea about whether I would like something based upon his verbiage as I learned to connect his words to certain taste characteristics. Same with audio reviewers. No one is after exactly what I am after. If any of them declared something as the “best” it would not mean anything to me. A few of them are good enough writers to let me gain some understanding about the products sonic characteristics.

Not a good analogy, the point of music reproduction is to reproduce the original performance.

 

[PeterA]

I did not mean to imply that I am looking for a winner in direct comparison reviews. That is not the point. My point is if a reviewer likes one component more than another for a specific reason, I would like him to describe what he hears from both components and then to describe why he likes or dislikes about what he hears. Is not picking a winner. It’s describing what you don’t like about a component in a comparison to what you like about another component. This does not mean that one component is better, it just thrills down into the differences in a clearer way.

 

[Elliot G.]

Not a good analogy, the point of music reproduction is to reproduce the original performance.

That is a good place to start IMO. I was a disciple of HP and the early TAS which was looking for the sound of unamplified instruments in an acoustic space ( or something to that order don't remember the exact words) . I had this discussion recently with an online influencer who wont be named but has a lab and is moving, that comparing gear with super produced music with audiophile fireworks( Queen Mary LOL) is nice but IMO meaningless since I am clueless what that should sound like because its unreal.

 

[JiminGa]

Not a good analogy, the point of music reproduction is to reproduce the original performance.

It’s a great analogy. Each of us hears differently and no one can tell anyone else “what the point is” You and I could go listen to the same system and come away with very different opinions. It would not be because one of us is inexperienced or uneducated on the subject of music reproduction. It is because we don’t hear the same or share identical objectives. Processing music is a complicated endeavor within the brain. Each might claim that theirs reflects the original performance. We can’t both be right. When each of us heard “the original performance” how did we process it? Also remember there is no universal consensus here about what the standard actually is. Live unamplified? The real truth is that each of us is just stating our personal preferences. This is a good thing. I follow my own experience not conformity to someone else’s opinion. I have spent a lot of time in studios hearing the music you listen to being made and like many here spent decades listening to live unamplified music. Anyone who changes their opinion based upon a reviewer saying xyz is the best lacks their own compass. I don’t give a rip what Robert or Mikey or Jonathan think? Who the F are they to tell me “what’s best”. What they can do is tell me what they hear using concise accurate wording to help me understand something about a product I haven’t heard for myself

 

[HughP3]

If a reviewer states that he does not like the sound of a component, I would like him to explain why. That was my prior point. I do not, or extremely rarely, read in reviews that a review does not like a component when directly compared to another.

I would like to read a review in which a reviewer or a hobbyist directly compares the Wadax stack to the dCS stack, describe what he hears, and then express his preference and the reasons. The reader may agree or disagree, but if he cannot do the direct comparison himself, such a review would be helpful. For example, does someone prefer the sound of new flagship Magico speaker to the previous one? If so why or why not?

I do understand your approach of describing what you hear and then letting the reader decide. One approaches tells the reader more about the reviewer and his taste than does the other approach. I like that Bonzo is so clear in his preferences for dual FLH over other types. He describes the difference, and why he prefers one over the other.

I have to add, if someone can afford the top tier Wadax, dCS or MSB they can easily afford to travel to various dealers and hear them. Granted not in the same system but in this $$$$ hobby doing a side by side is near impossible as a local dealer typically carries 1 flagship product if your lucky. Its nice to read a review that reinforces your purchase decision but its not enough for a pre-purchase.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Francisco’s comment about the Varese presenting the dynamics of live classical music is a great start.

agree.

Can the others do that as well as the dCS?

only one way to answer that. got to be head to head.