DCS Rossini

[Enatai252]

It is very hard for you to make the comparison Mad Floyd because you won't be able to reduce the other critical confounders. You would need to get access to the dCS algorithms for use on your computer source or the Hqplayer filters on the dCS and compare that way.

I don't think you have to over complicate it. I would listen to the same files at the same rates through a computer using HQPlayer and USB input and then through a NAS using Ethernet connection and allowing Rossini to internally upsample. Determine which one you prefer. Not scientific and there are other factors like USB vs Ethernet....but in reality...the individual doing the comparison is the only opinion that matters and in the real world....you will listen to computer via USB and NAS via Ethernet

I have found the Ethernet connection to be better....but I have not used hQ player. I don't want a computer involved so for me the point is moot

I do prefer the Vivaldi stack to the Rossini...but as I have mentioned before...the Rossini is a real value

If someone really wanted to use hQ player and a computer via USB.....I would recommend just getting the Vivaldi DAC and possibly the clock...I expect...it will outperform the Rossini in that application. The beauty of the Rossini is it rolls DAC, upsampler and network capability....into one box with a very high sound quality....tough to beat

 

[microstrip]

(...) If someone really wanted to use hQ player and a computer via USB.....I would recommend just getting the Vivaldi DAC and possibly the clock...I expect...it will outperform the Rossini in that application. The beauty of the Rossini is it rolls DAC, upsampler and network capability....into one box with a very high sound quality....tough to beat

Do you think that the USB input of the Vivaldi has higher potential sound quality than the AES/EBU inputs, for example at 192/24?

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I don't think you have to over complicate it. I would listen to the same files at the same rates through a computer using HQPlayer and USB input and then through a NAS using Ethernet connection and allowing Rossini to internally upsample. Determine which one you prefer. Not scientific and there are other factors like USB vs Ethernet....but in reality...the individual doing the comparison is the only opinion that matters and in the real world....you will listen to computer via USB and NAS via Ethernet

I have found the Ethernet connection to be better....but I have not used hQ player. I don't want a computer involved so for me the point is moot

I do prefer the Vivaldi stack to the Rossini...but as I have mentioned before...the Rossini is a real value

If someone really wanted to use hQ player and a computer via USB.....I would recommend just getting the Vivaldi DAC and possibly the clock...I expect...it will outperform the Rossini in that application. The beauty of the Rossini is it rolls DAC, upsampler and network capability....into one box with a very high sound quality....tough to beat

It is not over complicating it but merely doing what would be required to understand what medium has the best upsampling algorithms in a rigorous way. Your approach will not answer the question. The "other factors" are unfortunately very important and reflect an entire other world of computer audio. The sound of Hqplayer through a laptop is not the same proposition as Hqplayer through a customised audio server. You would be coming to spurious conclusions unless the situation was that you have a small fixed budget and don't currently own a nas but do own a laptop and wanted to decide whether the Ethernet connection using internal upsampling was worth buying a nas for versus using your existing laptop and buying a copy of Hqplayer.

 

[caesar]

Ok, if we're already in the business of spending another man's money, let me add my two cents. I have heard both the NADAC, and the Rossini without the clock. The NADAC is really impressive -- especially hearing it the last time in MadFloyd's (Ian's) system -- but still suffers from some typical digital weaknesses (e.g., harmonically thinned-out sax sound) that the Rossini without clock fully overcomes. It thereby bridges or, at the very least, almost closes the gap to great analog (on Redbook CD!). I would bet that a clock will improve the NADAC's performance substantially, but I would be surprised if it would transform the NADAC into a Rossini, where these typical digital weaknesses (also found with my DAC) cease to exist.

Therefore, I'd go the Rossini route, and add a clock there later, if desired. As for transparency, the Rossini has it in spades as well.

Hey Al, I agree with your assessment of the NADAC, especially the thinned-out sound. But it may be less bothersome to some due to system components/ synergy. The clock pretty much takes care of it, but not completely. Interestingly, the Nadac component appeals to all 3 of “Sterile” Jon Valin’s TAS marketing segments - and only very few products do that. I remember the “Great” Peter Breuninger being excited about it, so it should appeal to the “absolute sound” segment. I think “If you don’t got Magico, you SUCK” Fritz favorably reviewed it, and he represents the “transparency to source”/ analytical segment. And the PFO reviewer and religiously fervent DSD pusher David Clark Robinson (or is it David Robinson Clark – my apologies in advance as there are too many people and things to keep track of in my head) loved it also, which would represent the “as you like it” marketing segment. (This dude never published a Lampizator Golden DAC review, so he obviously loves Nadac more.) Interestingly, I don’t think any of the reviewers tried the Nadac with the clock, showing a lack of intellectual curiosity, but we live in the fukc the audio fan culture so we shouldn’t expect those guys to turn over every pebble as the truly passionate would…

Coming back to the Rossini, we are all sensitive to one thing or another in our gear preferences. My concern with the Rossini is the long dcs pedigree of sounding analytical in some systems. They are engineering chaps, and get excited when they hear some new detail. This fault may have been overcome with the latest Vivaldi / Rossini generation, but who knows? Also, is the extra-loud praise mostly from guys who up-sample their pcm to dsd, which many don’t really care for and consider a gross coloration that gets on their nerves?

Too many variables in our frequently confusing hobby.

 

[Enatai252]

Do you think that the USB input of the Vivaldi has higher potential sound quality than the AES/EBU inputs, for example at 192/24?

I have never been fond of using the USB inputs for critical home audio playback....many others will disagree...but IMO there is a slight veil over the presentation when using USB input as compared to direct digital inputs (including AES/EBU) or Ethernet. Of course the quality of the sound through the digital inputs is also very dependent on the source. So for me the Ethernet input of my Vivaldi upsampler is the primary input used followed by the BNC digital input of the upsampler which I use when playing Tidal through my Naim NDX streamer. Others may have different results/favorites depending on setup and system

 

[Enatai252]

It is not over complicating it but merely doing what would be required to understand what medium has the best upsampling algorithms in a rigorous way. Your approach will not answer the question. The "other factors" are unfortunately very important and reflect an entire other world of computer audio. The sound of Hqplayer through a laptop is not the same proposition as Hqplayer through a customised audio server. You would be coming to spurious conclusions unless the situation was that you have a small fixed budget and don't currently own a nas but do own a laptop and wanted to decide whether the Ethernet connection using internal upsampling was worth buying a nas for versus using your existing laptop and buying a copy of Hqplayer.

You may be missing my point and we are likely into semantics but what I was trying to say in response to your statement

"It is very hard for you to make the comparison Mad Floyd because you won't be able to reduce the other critical confounders. You would need to get access to the dCS algorithms for use on your computer source or the Hqplayer filters on the dCS and compare that way."

is that there is no point to trying to get dCS algorithms on a computer or HQplayer filters on the dCS unit. Both of these different upsampling techniques operate within a system-not independently-so what you want to test is which system fits your musical tastes and priorities best.

For example, if you use HQplayer you have the option of delivering PCM native up to DXD or up to 2XDSD into the dCS dac via usb. You could also deliver PCM up to 192k into the digital inputs. So you can listen to how that sounds and play around with changes in upsampling rates to see which combination works best. My guess is that if you fed the dCS native PCM from HQ player and let the dCS upsample and compared that to feeding it upsampled data from HQplayer that would be the easiest comparison of which algorithm you preferred. I would not stop there however, as you may find that feeding the dCS via Ethernet and completely dropping the computer may yield better results. That was my point....if you are interested in determining what is the best playback combination for your system....you must judge based on the entire system....trying to test individual components of a system only makes sense if they are truly interchangeable like do I like DAC A or B. again we are probably into semantics....I get your point that the quality of your computer also matters so this whole exercise is circular. At some point you will just have to pick what interface and server system you want and than optimize around that.

 

[Enatai252]

Coming back to the Rossini, we are all sensitive to one thing or another in our gear preferences. My concern with the Rossini is the long dcs pedigree of sounding analytical in some systems. They are engineering chaps, and get excited when they hear some new detail. This fault may have been overcome with the latest Vivaldi / Rossini generation, but who knows? Also, is the extra-loud praise mostly from guys who up-sample their pcm to dsd, which many don’t really care for and consider a gross coloration that gets on their nerves?

Too many variables in our frequently confusing hobby.

Agree lots of variables....although your fears seem based on lack of listening to the various options rather than grounded by listening. I encourage you to find the opportunity to try the new dCS products and see whether you are still concerned with a bias for detail over musicality. Given your past experience I would find it interesting and helpful to get that perspective from you. I did not have any past experience with their lineup but have been very pleased with the musicality and emotion I get in my listening sessions....although none of that is at the expense of detail and transparency. I actually prefer upsampling to DXD rather than DSD but others opinions do vary. the bigger factor recently with the Vivaldi DAC has been the addition of 2 new mapping algorithms which map the input rate to the native rate of the Ring DAC. Some of the improvements I hear with the new Mapping is startling

 

[Al M.]

Coming back to the Rossini, we are all sensitive to one thing or another in our gear preferences. My concern with the Rossini is the long dcs pedigree of sounding analytical in some systems. They are engineering chaps, and get excited when they hear some new detail. This fault may have been overcome with the latest Vivaldi / Rossini generation, but who knows? Also, is the extra-loud praise mostly from guys who up-sample their pcm to dsd, which many don’t really care for and consider a gross coloration that gets on their nerves?

Too many variables in our frequently confusing hobby.

Hi Caesar,

one thing that struck both Peter A., who only listens to analog at home, and myself was the full and natural sound of the dCS Rossini. You can read our impressions here:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...le-Redbook-CD-afternoon-at-Goodwin-s-High-End

(posts #1 and #15)

I hadn't heard anything like this from any digital before, except the dCS Vivaldi, but we didn't hear that one on sax. It was the most natural, least digital sound that we had ever heard from CD. I don't know which filter was used, but it was PCM upsampling.

 

[microstrip]

Chris Binns reviews the DCS Rossiny CD player and clock in the April-June 2016 Hifi-Critic issue.

In his own conclusive words "The Rossini excels in creating a sense of believable musical realism, and that is far closer to where I would like digital audio reproduction to be"

 

[Al M.]

Chris Binns reviews the DCS Rossiny CD player and clock in the April-June 2016 Hifi-Critic issue.

In his own conclusive words "The Rossini excels in creating a sense of believable musical realism, and that is far closer to where I would like digital audio reproduction to be"

What's his problem with digital? Does he not accept the science of analog signal reconstruction? His ears appear to tell him a different story than his theoretical convictions.

(I'm guessing since I don't have access to the review.)

 

[PeterA]

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.

 

[microstrip]

What's his problem with digital? Does he not accept the science of analog signal reconstruction? His ears appear to tell him a different story than his theoretical convictions.

(I'm guessing since I don't have access to the review.)

The science and the practical implementation of analog signal reconstruction are two very different things ...

IMHO, the current top digital is coming to a point where the choice will be mostly due to the preference of users. There are still a lot of mysteries to be solved - why did Chris Binns find that the CD played using the Rossini integrated player sounded much better than the same bit perfect ripped recording played from the NAS? - but this is not different from the delicate equilibrium of most high-end systems, where small details can make the difference between a vulgar or a great sound.

 

[Al M.]

The science and the practical implementation of analog signal reconstruction are two very different things …

I fully agree. That is a point that I have stressed over and over in the recent analog vs. digital debates on this forum, but a point that is lost on the die-hard digiphiles of 'perfect sound forever'. It is also lost on those analog die-hards who hear typical results of current digital technology and think that somehow the theory must be at fault.

I have come to the conclusion that the science and theory are sound, but that the problems strictly lie in the practical implementation. Yet in principle there is nothing that digital should lack compared to the available analog technology, even with just the standard Nyquist sampling rate, when implemented perfectly. Quite the contrary. But then, the perfect, or a close to perfect, implementation has not been found yet. dCS gear is among the top gear that comes closer to the ideal than others.

But what does the reviewer say? What caused him to make that remark?

 

[fas42]

There are still a lot of mysteries to be solved - why did Chris Binns find that the CD played using the Rossini integrated player sounded much better than the same bit perfect ripped recording played from the NAS? - but this is not different from the delicate equilibrium of most high-end systems, where small details can make the difference between a vulgar or a great sound.

+1 ... in the digital world, the gap between "vulgar" and "great" is so much greater - the comfort zone in analogue is much larger, and more diffuse ...

 

[jfrech]

But what does the reviewer say? What caused him to make that remark?

The review is posted here. Under the review section...top download...

http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/products/rossini-player/

 

[jfrech]

...why did Chris Binns find that the CD played using the Rossini integrated player sounded much better than the same bit perfect ripped recording played from the NAS?

I find the same with my Vivaldi. A red book cd is preferred over a 24/96 hi res file via NAS. There is a flow and a ease...I'm only guessing, it's not the data. Something in how the data is transmitted to the dac that causes the sound differences. My Vivaldi upsampler goes back to dCS soon for the network/ethernet input upgrade. So I expect this to change soon...not sure if it will close the gap entirely. Honestly, the NAS sounds pretty darn good...so degrees of goodness here.

Now all this said...I've heard the Rossini via disc and via NAS input. They both sound good...we're talking splitting hairs here (like we always do

 

[microstrip]

I find the same with my Vivaldi. (...)

Just one question about the Vivaldi. Did you compare the single ended (RCA) output with the balanced outputs?

 

[Al M.]

The review is posted here. Under the review section...top download...

http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/products/rossini-player/

Thanks. It seems that he was not necessarily skeptical about digital on theoretical grounds, but mainly from his past experiences with audible results.

Chris Binns reviews the DCS Rossiny CD player and clock in the April-June 2016 Hifi-Critic issue.

In his own conclusive words "The Rossini excels in creating a sense of believable musical realism, and that is far closer to where I would like digital audio reproduction to be"

After having read the entire review it became obvious to me that I misread that quote.

 

[jfrech]

Just one question about the Vivaldi. Did you compare the single ended (RCA) output with the balanced outputs?

I did not...can't offer a opinion here...

 

[dctom]

I find the same with my Vivaldi. A red book cd is preferred over a 24/96 hi res file via NAS. There is a flow and a ease...I'm only guessing, it's not the data. Something in how the data is transmitted to the dac that causes the sound differences. My Vivaldi upsampler goes back to dCS soon for the network/ethernet input upgrade. So I expect this to change soon...not sure if it will close the gap entirely. Honestly, the NAS sounds pretty darn good...so degrees of goodness here.

Now all this said...I've heard the Rossini via disc and via NAS input. They both sound good...we're talking splitting hairs here (like we always do

Hi John
I found the same with my playback MPS 5, CD sounded better than ripped or high res downloads.
I built a small silent HT computer using linux OS, SSD etc. The sound out using Jriver MC compared to Jr MC on my dell lap top was vastly better, CD might have had an edge at 44hz but high res files sounded better than disc.
I dont use a NAS just a small self powered drive.

I then tried a Lampizator GG and found it better again than the MPS 5 using Jr and HQ. HQ player sounds excellent but the interface on linux is clunky.

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