dCS Varese short review

[PeterA]

Why would this be a problem? Partisan brand nonsense aside there are many great turntables.

Well, I think there are many decent turntables, fewer really good, and even fewer excellent. I don’t know how many great turntables because I haven’t heard that many alternatives in good enough systems and been able to separate out what the actual turntable does. Perhaps you have.

I had thought that Mike brought up the notion of a reference component. A reference to me refers to the “tippy top of the mountain“. And for that rare exceptional reference component, I think there might be some disagreement among hobbyists and dealers, even reviewers. Same for a truly reference system. But anyway, Mike seems to be talking about something else.

 

[PeterA]

Hello Mike and Peter,

Aren't you both just talking past each other? Peter would use live acoustic music as the reference. You would use analog playback as the reference.

There is no right or wrong here. Just a difference of opinion about goals..

I think I just did not understand what Mike was talking about because my post was about a reference source component and Mike was talking about a reference source I think meaning media.

The bigger difference is that my reference is live music and Mike seems to have a different reference when judging a DAC but I think he’s actually talking about judging a Digital transfer quality from some recording engineer Still not sure I understand it. It doesn’t really matter.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I get all that, but it was not clear from earlier posts what you were attempting to do or describe. Since this is a thread about a top DAC, I still don’t understand why one would compare two top DACs to anything but his memory of live music. Comparing how well some engineer did a digital transfer from an analog recording seems to me to be a different topic and not what was being discussed earlier or at least it wasn’t clear to me that that was the discussion.

i made that case in the first post of mine you quoted (#845)

you have a tape transfer and IMHO the better dac will more closely resemble the source recording. if you think that you are concerned about maybe that transfer was not done quite right. do another 10 of them until you get a comfort with your result. or 50. or 100. i've done this for years and my results hold up.

we are trying to sort out either better or a preference or more like the source. and like anything subjective it comes down to our ears and opinions. but over time this approach get's closest to the truth. but certainly no proof. it's not that kinda thing.

or just compare the dacs and choose which one you like. or just throw out an opinion based on different times and different systems. no approach is perfect. i just happen to like my approach.

 

[PeterA]

i made that case in the first post of mine you quoted (#845)

you have a tape transfer and IMHO the better dac will more closely resemble the source recording. if you think that you are concerned about maybe that transfer was not done quite right. do another 10 of them until you get a comfort with your result. or 50. or 100. i've done this for years and my results hold up.

And this helped you choose the WADAX over your MSB? That is interesting.

The last time I did a DAC shootout, I was with Al at Goodwin’s high-end Audio. I just chose the DAC that reminded me more of the sound of real music.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hello Mike and Peter,

Aren't you both just talking past each other? Peter would use live acoustic music as the reference. You would use analog playback as the reference.

There is no right or wrong here. Just a difference of opinion about goals..

choose the analog reference recording based on which one also checks your 'live music' box. then you have an 'in system' reference you can A/B. much better than some sort of aural memory thing of a recent live experience which you then try to apply to a different piece of music. the 'live music' factor still figures into it. no reason to dismiss it. but use it in the most effective way. and then the other ears listening also get that benefit of the same exact reference.

i have many such references that sound 'live' to me and make me think that way.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

And this helped you choose the WADAX over your MSB? That is interesting.

i had both for 2 weeks and did many direct compares to vinyl myself. and a few with 10 observers present. and a few posted about it.

the use of an analog reference seemed to help the visitors be clear on what was going on. for them to understand the significance of differences and preferences. why the vinyl was better, which dac was more similar.

The last time I did a DAC shootout, I was with Al at Goodwin’s high-end Audio. I just chose the DAC that reminded me more of the sound of real music.

which dac? did you buy it? what was the other dac you compared it to?

were you with other's doing the same thing? what references did they use? and were your results the same as theirs?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

there are analog references that will reveal so much more information than the tape transfer that it then is a road map to which dac is getting the closest. so many times with digital the differences are difficult to sort out as to which is more like music. what is music? and what is a digital nastie? a digital artifact? the analog can lead the way to the truth.

how was it recorded? how is it suppose to sound?

those "ah-ha' moments.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Well, I think there are many decent turntables, fewer really good, and even fewer excellent. I don’t know how many great turntables because I haven’t heard that many alternatives in good enough systems and been able to separate out what the actual turntable does. Perhaps you have.

I had thought that Mike brought up the notion of a reference component. A reference to me refers to the “tippy top of the mountain“. And for that rare exceptional reference component, I think there might be some disagreement among hobbyists and dealers, even reviewers. Same for a truly reference system. But anyway, Mike seems to be talking about something else.

the reference is the analog recording. the differences in the hardware in the top realm of tt's is almost indistinguishable in the compare to digital compared to the pressing.

sure; we have reference components that matter. turntables/arms/cartridges, phono stages, phono cables. those all make a difference. but within a range of better vinyl front ends the pressing is much more the issue.

 

[PeterA]

i had both for 2 weeks and did many direct compares to vinyl myself. and a few with 10 observers present. and a few posted about it.

the use of an analog reference seemed to help the visitors be clear on what was going on. for them to understand the significance of differences and preferences. why the vinyl was better, which dac was more similar.

which dac? did you buy it? what was the other dac you compared it to?

were you with other's doing the same thing? what references did they use? and were your results the same as theirs?

As I said, I was with Al M. There were three DACs. The dCS Rossini, a Spectral, and the Berkeley Ref. I did not buy one. It was just a shootout comparison. I already told you my reference. It is live acoustic music. My preference was for the Rossini. I can’t remember which Al preferred. I think I started a thread about it.

The details don’t matter. The important thing was the methodology used and the reference used on which to pass judgment. Each of us has his own methods and references and process.

 

[PeterA]

the reference is the analog recording. the differences in the hardware in the top realm of tt's is almost indistinguishable in the compare to digital compared to the pressing.

sure; we have reference components that matter. turntables/arms/cartridges, phono stages, phono cables. those all make a difference. but within a range of better vinyl front ends the pressing is much more the issue.

I just use the same handful of good and familiar recordings to judge which component I prefer and I ask myself which sounds most natural

 

[Ron Resnick]

I agree with Peter on this. If I had to pick a reference for digital it would not be analog.

Whether the source component is a DAC or a turntable I try to determine which sounds more like a live person singing to me in my room.

 

[andromedaaudio]

May be you can sell it to Lagonda .
He might be into this kinda grounding stuff lol.

Ps I only ground my aluminium tin foil hifi hat at the moment

 

[Tripoint Audio]

May be you can sell it to Lagonda .
He might be into this kinda grounding stuff lol.

Ps I only ground my aluminium tin foil hifi hat at the moment

Grounding is only one aspect. Happy Listening!

 

[Rexp]

I heard a difference between the stock cable cord on my turntables motor supply, and an aftermarket power cord over YouTube videos. The stock power cord sounded better, much to my surprise into the surprise of the turntable designer. What I heard on the videos confirmed what I heard live in the room.

Of course one will hear the differences between those three rooms if he is actually in each of the three rooms. I would argue that he could also hear the differences if recording was made of each room over YouTube. But the latter opinion is highly controversial on WBF.

Not sure why you're mentioning youtube, I certainly didn't.

 

[Rexp]

Well, the reference for a digital playback of an analog recording, is……drum roll please….that recording played back optimally in analog.

Either the best pressing, or the best source tape.

How could there exist a better reference to judge the digital transfer?

we can prefer digital that sounds more different, but the one most closely resembling the analog wins for me. Especially the one with the most degree of analog realism and immersion..

The vinyl master is usually very different to the digital master though, so you could end up preferring the DAC that adds something that makes the digital version sound more palatable but is less transparent.

 

[Al M.]

As I said, I was with Al M. There were three DACs. The dCS Rossini, a Spectral, and the Berkeley Ref. I did not buy one. It was just a shootout comparison. I already told you my reference. It is live acoustic music. My preference was for the Rossini. I can’t remember which Al preferred. I think I started a thread about it.

Rossini as well. That was in 2016. At the time the session was a revelation. In the meantime things have progressed. I am certain that my current digital with the Tambaqui DAC and Mutec clock would comfortably beat that set-up from back then.

 

[microstrip]

Not tricky. What comes after mastering is the intent of the track. That is what you are comparing your playback to.

So you are not comparing to live acoustic, but to the sound in the control room using the studio speakers.

 

[microstrip]

Well, the reference for a digital playback of an analog recording, is……drum roll please….that recording played back optimally in analog.

Either the best pressing, or the best source tape.

How could there exist a better reference to judge the digital transfer?

we can prefer digital that sounds more different, but the one most closely resembling the analog wins for me. Especially the one with the most degree of analog realism and immersion..

How do you overcome that the best digital recordings are those carried in native digital? I have asked several times - can you find an analog recording that has the complexity, harmonic richness , variability, dynamics, inter play, drama and fine detail of Savall recording "Les Routes de l'Esclavage" ? If you want to have any idea of what I am addressing please see the teaser at

 

[microstrip]

The vinyl master is usually very different to the digital master though, so you could end up preferring the DAC that adds something that makes the digital version sound more palatable but is less transparent.

Yes, a top quality vinyl mastering is manipulated to overcome vinyl limitations and artifacts. Unfortunately, many digital versions were made from these tapes, not from original master tapes. We addressed several times before in WBF the ambiguity of the term "master tape".

IMO picking the best orange comparing the oranges with an apple is bizarre.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

IMO picking the best orange comparing the oranges with an apple is bizarre.

...but makes sense if you own an expensive family apple orchard, and your life revolves around growing and selling apples, which is what we seem to read a lot here.