Review and Measurements of PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC

[Guermantes]

You can make the claim that all well-functioning DACs sound similar, so how else would you rank them other than subjectively?

Take a $100 DAC and put it in a nice enclosure, boom, you just made a $6000 PS Audio DAC equivalent. Sure it sounds good, but why pay $5900 more just for looks?

Yes, indeed, it seems logical. But I don't think logic will reconcile the objective vs subjective perspectives.

Music produces affect and we want everything involved in (re)producing music to heighten our experience of it. I think, subjectively, we conflate the emotional nature of listening to music with the qualities of the equipment we use. If we have better equipment, then we can experience more emotion. Music = affect and equipment ≤ max affect.

The language surrounding affect and emotion is different to that surrounding audio engineering. Just look at any manufacturer's copy regarding their equipment and you see language appealing to the emotional experience of listening to music. Think of all the equipment reviewers who talk about pace, rhythm and timing -- words that are musically and also physiologically descriptive (see entrainment).

The description from the PS Audio website includes this:

Imagine going to a recording studio and listening to a master tape of any recording made. This is the experience DirectStream provides its owners who enjoy a renewed sense of enjoyment and discovery when listening to everything in their library: CD’s, downloads, DSD.​

​

This is about experiencing something authentic, about discovering something previously unattainable or hidden. We have easy access to countless high quality reproductions of the Mona Lisa but the crowds still flock to the Louvre every day to have that personal experience in the presence of the original. I did that and was somewhat disappointed by the reality, just as I'm sure many would be disappointed with the actual experience of listening to master tapes in a studio.

No-one can engineer a perfect DAC but nevertheless we long for that authentic, perfect listening experience even though the object of our longing is probably a personal fiction. And we project that longing onto the equipment we buy or lust after.

Then there those people who have completely confused the love of music with the love of gear . . .

 

[GrimSurfer]

The description from the PS Audio website includes this:

Imagine going to a recording studio and listening to a master tape of any recording made. This is the experience DirectStream provides its owners who enjoy a renewed sense of enjoyment and discovery when listening to everything in their library: CD’s, downloads, DSD.​

This is precisely the thing that bothers many ASR members about manufacturers... their claims are framed to mislead.

A modern master tape/file will be at least 24/96. Playback on studio hear will be able to extract a great deal of this, play it back through flat studio monitors, in a space that has considerable acoustic treatment.

Based on Amir's test, the DirectStream is unable to operate to even 16 bits. The venue and speakers are well beyond the ability of PS Audio to control...

But that doesn't stop them from selling a dream that implies certain product capabilities (studio like reproduction) that are not there.

All manufacturers do this. PS Audio is noteworthy this time because their DAC has been shown to perform poorly compared with many others tested.

Emotion is simply used as a crutch to talk around poor performance.

 

[digicidal]

I started the testing with my audiophile, audio-show, test tracks. You know, the very well recorded track with lucious detail and "black backgrounds." I immediately noticed lack of detail in PerfectWave DS DAC. It was as if someone just put a barrier between you and the source. Mind you, it was subtle but it was there. I repeated this a few times and while it was not always there with all music, I could spot it on some tracks.

The veil! It's the dreaded veil... I thought that's exactly what esoteric hifi DACs costing multiple thousands of dollars were supposed to lift... not drop onto the music.

This is precisely the thing that bothers many ASR members about manufacturers... their claims are framed to mislead.
...
But that doesn't stop them from selling a dream that implies certain product capabilities that are not there.

Hypocrisy as well as a flawed premise to begin with. In all honesty, I don't care how much a company lies in their marketing (OK hyperbole - I'd prefer it kept to a minimum but it's marketing after all - it's basically 100% bullshit). The problem I have is with the belief that the artist and studio engineers (and to lesser extent production co/publisher) are all completely wrong about how their own creative product should sound. Even worse when the defense from the equipment manufacturer is often "well if you don't like our house sound, don't buy our product"! So your subjective additions to the audio signal are universally beneficial, yet those of the artists/engineers making the recordings are not (since you're stepping all over theirs with yours)?

So it's not only hypocrisy, its rampant egoism and I find it insulting as well. In almost all cases, they're saying "everyone should want to hear things my way"... as opposed to the pursuit of transparency: "everyone should hear what's actually there, and nothing else". Which one allows more creativity and (gasp) subjective enjoyment of the widest range of genre/conditions? Which one could just as easily be translated as "you're so stupid, just give me your money and trust"?

 

[GrimSurfer]

I suspect we both derive some perverse pleasure from reading between the lines of douchbag ad copy, @digicidal. What really galls us, however, is that this ad copy gets picked up and retransmitted to the masses, who swallow it to such a degree that it becomes assumed truth and part of audio folklore.

Further insult occurs when independent test results are vociferously challenged by those who swallowed the eggregious ad copy in the first place, using the same ignorance and poor logic that got them into the mess in the first place.

The whole thing resembles a really good confidence scheme, where the dupe never knows he/she has been taken and [metaphorically] drives across the Brooklyn Bridge every day steadfastly believing it to be theirs.

 

[CheapskateCCAOwner]

We certainly cannot assume the current measurements are the last word on audibility evaluation because the correlation between these numbers and audible perception is poor and ill-defined. The latter cannot be just dismissed as if only there were “controlled tests there would be good correlation...”. That is just copping out. Until then there will always be a group that will reject these measurements and for a justifiable reason.

As Amir has mentioned in several ASR reviews, a product with a relatively poor SINAD measurement (or other measurement) may be audibly indistinguishable from a product with a "good" SINAD measurement, assuming the noise and distortion of the poorer performing product doesn't exceed audible thresholds. With that, your claim that the "correlation between these numbers and audible perception is poor and ill-defined" is simply not true. Beyond a certain "number" threshold, noise and distortion can clearly be heard. With that, I don't understand why you continue to push the narrative that there is no meaningful correlation between good measurements and good sound (or bad measurements and bad sound).

The simple truth (again, explained by Amir countless times) is that up to a certain threshold, noise and distortion is not audible; a product that measures poorly may in fact sound just as good as a product that measures far better; no one is arguing that point. However, in this particular case, the PS Audio DAC's high distortion/noise measurements indicate that the threshold of audibility of these unarguably undesirable artifacts may have been exceeded, and Amir's listening tests appear to confirm this. I agree that it may not be helpful to use a "SINAD scorecard" to judge one product's supposed superiority over another product, but the correlation between measurements and perceived sound quality is demonstrably valid, as long as the thresholds of audibility are taken into account.

 

[digicidal]

Yes, ad copy is most enjoyable while on the toilet, producing some of my own. It's why I have subscriptions to so many audio magazines.

There's such a weird level of religious adoration that occurs in audiophilia much of the time. Many enthusiasts seem to have the belief that because they like a product, or company, or designer - that it inherently means there can't be a failure at all. Or worse, that the preference directly correlates to performance or accuracy. I can totally understand loving a poorly measuring device based on subjective impressions of either audio or just aesthetics. What I don't understand is complete denial of measurements or treating reviews with unfavorable conclusions as a personal attack on either the consumer or the manufacturer.

I very seriously doubt that Audio Research gear is the best measuring gear in hifi... and I wouldn't take umbrage with anyone that said they were way overpriced and way under-performing. It wouldn't change the fact that I know I'd think a pair of these were absolutely incredible - even if they weren't on at the time!

In fact I might just power them on for the glow and run a couple Benchmark amps hidden behind the speakers if it bugged me enough - but I'd never, ever get rid of them. (drool...)

 

[direstraitsfan98]

Yes, ad copy is most enjoyable while on the toilet, producing some of my own. It's why I have subscriptions to so many audio magazines.

There's such a weird level of religious adoration that occurs in audiophilia much of the time. Many enthusiasts seem to have the belief that because they like a product, or company, or designer - that it inherently means there can't be a failure at all. Or worse, that the preference directly correlates to performance or accuracy. I can totally understand loving a poorly measuring device based on subjective impressions of either audio or just aesthetics. What I don't understand is complete denial of measurements or treating reviews with unfavorable conclusions as a personal attack on either the consumer or the manufacturer.

I very seriously doubt that Audio Research gear is the best measuring gear in hifi... and I wouldn't take umbrage with anyone that said they were way overpriced and way under-performing. It wouldn't change the fact that I know I'd think a pair of these were absolutely incredible - even if they weren't on at the time! View attachment 34499
In fact I might just power them on for the glow and run a couple Benchmark amps hidden behind the speakers if it bugged me enough - but I'd never, ever get rid of them. (drool...)

These are probably the worst measuring amps ARC has ever made. But I agree with you. Actually I’m partial to Pass Labs and Mcintosh. Funnily enough, out of the three brands, Pass, ARC, and Mcintosh, I believe Mcintosh has the best measuring amplifiers.

 

[digicidal]

That seems like a major paradigm shift in audio gear these days... the best measuring gear is (subjectively and just IMO of course) boring and ugly... but also very reasonably priced and broadly accessible - especially in comparison to 40 years ago.

There are rare exceptions (thankfully) but if money and space were no object I'd have a beautiful and expensive setup that I looked at but never listened to - and a second, much cheaper setup with mostly pro-audio gear that I hid away from sight but always listened to. There are painfully few pieces of exceptionally measuring gear that I actually like the aesthetics of unfortunately. First world problems...

 

[BillG]

if money and space were no object I'd have a beautiful and expensive setup that I looked at but never listened to

Even if money were no object to me, my only concern towards aesthetics would be the appearance of my speakers. (I like integrated amps, preferably with on board streaming, that can stashed away easily as opposed to a component system. And I've no interest in analog sources. So the setup would be minimalist.) However, even the plainest looking of speakers can be dressed up with a relatively inexpensive paint job or vinyl veneer.

That's not a criticism of your stance, by the way, I'm just throwing it out there for consideration...

 

[LTig]

[..]
Take a $100 DAC and put it in a nice enclosure, boom, you just made a $6000 PS Audio DAC equivalent. Sure it sounds good, but why pay $5900 more just for looks?

This is an insult - to the 100$ DAC.

 

[LTig]

[..]
The description from the PS Audio website includes this:

Imagine going to a recording studio and listening to a master tape of any recording made. This is the experience DirectStream provides its owners who enjoy a renewed sense of enjoyment and discovery when listening to everything in their library: CD’s, downloads, DSD.​

The path to get such an experience is so easy: buy what the pros use.

Using pro DACs and active pro speakers is not cheap compared to "normal" consumer gear, but much cheaper than highend gear. Combining a RME ADI-2 DAC with any Neumann speaker will give you an experience which in my view cannot be topped by consumer gear in the same price range, probably not for much more money.

 

[beefkabob]

The above statement is the problem. If you want to make the assertion about what is below that very arbitrary level, that you can possibly hear it, that is just throwing FUD. To be valid in the methodology of science, you would need to document a few cases under rigorous listening testing that you could indeed hear something that is detrimental.

Here are the aditional problems when you dig deeper into the meaning of a single number that ranks it.

1. Equipment A and B rank the same in that number. One has higher harmonic distortion and lower noise while the other has higher noise level but lower harmonic distortion. Does that number mean they are necessarily equally bad and someone would hear that in both?

2. Or take a variant of the above case when equipment A is in the “pass” category in that arbitrary chop off and equipment B is below it. All of B’s numbers come from noise most of which is in the inaudible range with very little harmonic distortion. Most of A’s numbers come from harmonic distortion with a very low noise floor. Is it reasonable to say in the interests of science that A is a “pass” while B is a “fail”?

I find you difficult to understand. I think you don't really understand what you're talking about or what anybody else is saying, so your points don't make sense.

The path to get such an experience is so easy: buy what the pros use.

Using pro DACs and active pro speakers is not cheap compared to "normal" consumer gear, but much cheaper than highend gear. Combining a RME ADI-2 DAC with any Neumann speaker will give you an experience which in my view cannot be topped by consumer gear in the same price range, probably not for much more money.

100% agree. Also add a sub.

 

[MZKM]

This is an insult - to the 100$ DAC.

Gotta factor in that has balanced and I2S connections.
On that note, I noticed they called it XLR for the balanced input and not AES, I wonder if they ever had a customer connect analog XLR to it.

 

[Veri]

On that note, I noticed they called it XLR for the balanced input and not AES, I wonder if they ever had a customer connect analog XLR to it.

Well a plain XLR cable could still carry the AES signal. It's just one cable so it would be pretty silly to try and connect one of two stereo analog XLR to it, that won't work no

 

[Krunok]

Using pro DACs and active pro speakers is not cheap compared to "normal" consumer gear, but much cheaper than highend gear. Combining a RME ADI-2 DAC with any Neumann speaker will give you an experience which in my view cannot be topped by consumer gear in the same price range, probably not for much more money.

I don't really agree. I listen mostly in my living room and my LP is app 4 meters from the speakers. Most of the Neumann studio monitors are not designed for that listening distance. Even the KH 420 is a midfield monitor (recommended up to 3m). Not to mention reduced vertical dispersion and also the fact that I don't want to look at ugly black boxes instead of nicely designed peace of furniture.

I would rather have cheap DAC like SMSL SU-8 v2 that is totally transparent, connected to reasonably priced amp like Rotel RB-1582 MkII powering Revel F208 that not only sound very well but look as they were made in Florence (Tuscany).

 

[BDWoody]

The path to get such an experience is so easy: buy what the pros use.

Using pro DACs and active pro speakers is not cheap compared to "normal" consumer gear, but much cheaper than highend gear. Combining a RME ADI-2 DAC with any Neumann speaker will give you an experience which in my view cannot be topped by consumer gear in the same price range, probably not for much more money.

I am coming around to this... My JBL 705p's, and 708p's made a believer out of me.

At least I know, beyond any doubt, that I didn't pay extra for its aesthetics...

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes, ad copy is most enjoyable while on the toilet, producing some of my own. It's why I have subscriptions to so many audio magazines.

There's such a weird level of religious adoration that occurs in audiophilia much of the time. Many enthusiasts seem to have the belief that because they like a product, or company, or designer - that it inherently means there can't be a failure at all. Or worse, that the preference directly correlates to performance or accuracy. I can totally understand loving a poorly measuring device based on subjective impressions of either audio or just aesthetics. What I don't understand is complete denial of measurements or treating reviews with unfavorable conclusions as a personal attack on either the consumer or the manufacturer.

I very seriously doubt that Audio Research gear is the best measuring gear in hifi... and I wouldn't take umbrage with anyone that said they were way overpriced and way under-performing. It wouldn't change the fact that I know I'd think a pair of these were absolutely incredible - even if they weren't on at the time! View attachment 34499
In fact I might just power them on for the glow and run a couple Benchmark amps hidden behind the speakers if it bugged me enough - but I'd never, ever get rid of them. (drool...)

Conrad Johnson used to be the other side of the AR guys in the market. No love for CJ anymore?

 

[Krunok]

Conrad Johnson used to be the other side of the AR guys in the market. No love for CJ anymore?

View attachment 34521

It looks beautifull!

 

[AudioSceptic]

You can make the claim that all well-functioning DACs sound similar, so how else would you rank them other than subjectively?

Take a $100 DAC and put it in a nice enclosure, boom, you just made a $6000 PS Audio DAC equivalent. Sure it sounds good, but why pay $5900 more just for looks?

That's what the March Audio DAC1 is: a Khadas Tone Board in a very nice case for around $400 <https://www.marchaudio.net.au/dac-1>. Actually, it's objectively orders of magnitude better than the PS Audio, but that wouldn't translate into the same subjective difference. Some might even prefer the sound of the PS Audio!

 

[LTig]

I don't really agree. I listen mostly in my living room and my LP is app 4 meters from the speakers. Most of the Neumann studio monitors are not designed for that listening distance. Even the KH 420 is a midfield monitor (recommended up to 3m).

I wouldn't take this too strict. Neumann also writes on their homepage:

The KH 420 is designed for midfield applications and as main monitor in project, music, broadcast and post-production studios for recording, mixing and mastering.​

I use the predecessor of the KH 310 (K&H O300D) with a listening distance of 3.8 m in a 50 squaremeter room and the sound is very good (with a sub, but is was also good without sub before).

Not to mention reduced vertical dispersion and also the fact that I don't want to look at ugly black boxes instead of nicely designed peace of furniture.

I would rather have cheap DAC like SMSL SU-8 v2 that is totally transparent, connected to reasonably priced amp like Rotel RB-1582 MkII powering Revel F208.

I didn't talk about looks, but about the experience listening to master tape recording in a studio as advertised by PS. Being strict even the looks of the studio equipment belongs to this experience.