Ignorant? I don't think using my ears and drawing a different conclusion than you (so far) constitutes ignorance. When I hear consistently superior sound from DSD, I won't be shy in admitting it. I have an issue with what I hear in the highs withDSD, which is likely something to do with the extereme noise shaping being applied. Maybe I am wrong ...
Jeff's Getting a New Stereo System
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
I am open to hearing that way but so far haven't. I think a lot of people are equating this smooth, somewhat polite sound I hear with analog...and it is but only somewhat. Without hearing your Vivaldi doing DSD I cannot say if it has a similar character or not.
From what I have heard recently with DSD 256 though I would say it is still a trait I hear in high Rez DSD.
With all due respect to JA, RH et al., Unless heavily modified (like Vacuumstate level 5) SACD from 1999 was nearly as bad as normal cd through a Technics "MASH" 1 bit player. Bland, bland, bland.
From what I have heard recently with DSD 256 though I would say it is still a trait I hear in high Rez DSD.
With all due respect to JA, RH et al., Unless heavily modified (like Vacuumstate level 5) SACD from 1999 was nearly as bad as normal cd through a Technics "MASH" 1 bit player. Bland, bland, bland.
fair enough, and my choice of that word was not the best.
I will watch your current digital focus evolve and see where it takes you. I know it's fun having a nice new 'uber' dac.
Don't expect much in the next several years... I make upgrades sparingly once I find something I think sounds "right".
My usual comment about unobtainium, extremely rare or unique events - they do not add nothing to the debate unless properly and extensively detailed, something I understand we can not usually expect in a forum.
But I expect it on the Kassandra!
Btw. Maybe it has been said on the forum already but when you did those tests at Flyers did you level match between the DACs? I mean you mention a huge gain increase but not if you brought the levels to be equal again.
we already covered this - for 242 the volume was reduced by many steps (IIRC, it was considered to be 16db higher), and anyway I played with the volume up and down. I know you insist on level matching, best way is not to and to change volume and see how things sound at different levels. Each gear has its own sweet spot. When I had compared with Nagra, for example, I had put the Nagra pre on its 0db setting and on its +6db setting, and then changed the volume (what if Nagra dac with Nagra pre had sounded better in one setting or the other?), including when I put it with the Siltech preamp. You seem to hint that all compares should be done at one volume, level matched. To add, 242s were consistently better. And the 45s were not.
bonzo75 said:
Hello morricab, hello bonzo,
At the risk of derailing Jeff's thread, my perspective is thus:
When it comes to “compares” apropos an electrically interdependent electro-mechanical/electro-acoustic mechanism as all hi-fi systems by definition are, the audible effects of differences in output voltage and and perhaps more importantly, impedance, will mean any comparison should ideally factor in those two variables and seek to eliminate (or at the very least, minimise) their influence, least one arrive at conclusions that prove true too many times to never be considered un-true.
This would seem doubly pertinent in cases in which one of the devices under evaluation changes its output level and output impedance depending on what output tube is used, say in the case of the Lampi (I believe the GG’s VRMS level can vary between 1.1 and 6 VRMS and its output impedance can vary between 1.6 and 4.2 kohms dependent on selection of 101D, 45, 300B - I’ve yet to see any definitive measurements apropos the 242) and/or the Kassandra in which both will inevitably perform differently depending on tube bias. In cases in which the output impedance relative to the input impedance of the component it’s connected to is not known, any “superiority” will remain restricted to the context of that system and that system alone, and any assumptions of superiority across systems not evaluated are unlikely to provide observations of any real-world utility value.
Of course, it’s also possible any “superiority” is most evident only relative to a particular cluster of musically and sonically relevant variables with any downsides masked by those upsides - the upside/downside ratio may not necessarily be the same in systems of greater or lesser electrical compatibility.
Best to you both,
853guy
That's why most of us have different valves to change the gain and impedance match accordingly, and why flyer also changed bias accordingly. And that's why for me after the speaker is Lampi, then the power amp to drive the speaker, and then the pre that will match the gain between the 242 and the rest. The flexibilty to change bias/adjust with valves is an advantage. And as for compares, they should be done across systems, like with cartridges
To me, there’s a significant difference between ‘comparing’ and ‘assigning a preference’.
Assigning preferences is something we do constantly, relative to our perception, and as such, requires nothing other than our perception expressed via a subjectivized opinion. I did that when I went to Munich, preferring some systems to others, and in some cases digital to vinyl and vinyl to digital in the same system, which, given the variables - none of which were under my control - resulted in observations limited to my perception and therefore of a lesser observational value to any one else.
However, saying one compared two cartridges, on different arms, with unique VTA, SRA, tracking force, cartridge loading, volume setting to compensate for output differences, internal wiring, and on two different turntables without mitigating/eliminating those variables or at the very least attempting to contextualise them is not, to me, a comparison - simply the assigning of preference, relative to the specific inter-dependencies of that particular system. Comparing two cartridges, on the same arm with the same wiring, into the same phono stage with the same interconnects, on the same turntable, and set up in such a way that each is performing at its best relative to its physical and electrical potential is, to me, a much more relevant method for evaluation of each cartridge's strengths and weaknesses, and as such, has the potential to confer a greater level of observational value relative to the former.
That I would never consider either the audition nor purchase of a cartridge without first taking into account the arm and turntable it was mounted to, relative to its compliance, output voltage, internal impedance, and ideal load impedance perhaps makes me an anomaly (1), but I appreciate that we all choose evaluation methods that best suit our ideology at any given moment.
853guy
(1) I admit I personally do not consider the cart/arm/table/phono stage to be independent entities - to me, they are hugely electrically and mechanically inter-dependent, and are best considered as a single entity. YMMV.
Analog is much more complex, so in some ways a poorer analogy, but if you do a cart compare across different TT arms and phonos and each time, one cart comes across as rolled off, one comes across as coloured, one as neutral, you can draw out some attributes that repeat.
That may be true, but any repeatable attributes drawn out will still only ever be defined and ultimately limited to those specific tables, arms and phonos, with almost zero observational value beyond them. Just ‘cause Cart X sounded great in three different unipivots on three different belt-driven tables into three different solid state phonos doesn’t mean it’ll sound great on an air-bearing or gimballed arm (especially if the cart has an unusually high or low compliance) on an idler or DD into a SUT or tubed phono stage (especially if it has an unusually high or low output level/internal impedance and/or both).
I know it’s tempting to draw conclusions based on wide exposure, but when it comes to cart/arm/table/phono electro-mechanical compatibility, audio tourism just can’t sweat the details in the way that first-hand experience of set up relative to a single individual system can, given that ultimately, each cart will end up in a single system of very specific interdependencies, and that system’s interdependencies will alone be the arbiter of what a cart will be capable of. Context is everything, and outliers exist everywhere, especially when it comes to vinyl.
It probably sounds like I’m being pedantic, but as I intimate above, the problem with anything that repeats itself across conditions of variance in which all the variables are not taken into account and/or mitigated/under one’s control is that one can reach conclusions that prove “true” too many times to never be considered un-true.
It’s akin to getting five winning hands in a row leading you to think that your poker opponent must be a lesser card player than you, emboldening you to go all in on the next hand, when in fact, the truth is you’re is actually being deceived and the dealer/house is playing you. In other words, the greatest variable was never all the variables you considered, but the one you never did.
Be well, bonzo.
853guy
Actually it's not only if the cart sounded great but what are the attributes that cart has. How nuanced is it, rolled off or not, bass, etc etc. I agree with analog it's tough to come to a conclusion on how things will exactly sound in your system, but you can draw a shortlist. You can usually say if you are in the ortofon a95 camp or koetsu camp, though not if you are in the Lyra atlas or the a95 camp
my own experience with Bonzo is he is extremely sensitive to how system nuances and character, as well as set-up quality, affects perceptions, and cautious as to cause and effect. but i respect hands on intimate experience is very valuable too. but system colorations and biases can really skew single system gear conclusions.
being not emotionally connected to systems Bonzo hears, also helps with objectivity and likely tips the scales of where the truth lies. another person I've had exposure to is Ed (Eurodriver) of SGM, who has heard many dozens of systems over the globe in the last couple of years, and had a couple of extended multi-day sessions in my system. Ed and Bonzo are treasures of information, while not infallible and certainly have their own biases. but both of their very serious listening styles does get to the heart of things.
neither approach is perfect.
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |