Yes! Jan used me for his beta testing.You're speaking about Linear audio autoranger, right?
Yes! Jan used me for his beta testing.You're speaking about Linear audio autoranger, right?
Quite off-topic, but which opamp did perform best?Yes! Jan used me for his beta testing.
No. Subjective reviewers/audiophiles alike love to say that about everything. I could sell them an "Audio" Thumb Tack to put on their wall and they say it made the system more like analog! Many hold analog to higher esteem than digital so think saying that elevates a DAC.I wonder, does this DAC actually sound a bit like analogue tape? Some of the subjective reviews give that impression and perhaps that's why they like it so much?
Analog = real. Digital = made up stuff trying to sound real. Marketing 101.No. Subjective reviewers/audiophiles alike love to say that about everything. I could sell them an "Audio" Thumb Tack to put on their wall and they say it made the system more like analog! Many hold analog to higher esteem than digital so think saying that elevates a DAC.
Didn't see that before. Here is their spec right above that description:and it "... has a level of performance to put most audio analyzers to shame ...". Big words, big mouth
While I appreciate what you are saying, I think people should be free to spend what they want on their audio gear. Clearly the PS Audio DS DAC looks a lot fancier than $100 DACs we test and that pride of ownership has value for people.The important point is getting buried in the chucking graphs around and ego pissing contests again.
It doesn't matter what instruments got used in the design, or the measurement of the final product.
It doesn't matter if the design provides a dac that performs better than out hearing can determine.
Sure it's a nice looking unit. That does matter but it doesn't matter $5,700 worth!
There are a lot of dacs that will perform to this level and above in the $200 to $300 price bracket.
There are a few that will match it for $100.
... You just can't use it to measure any DAC of reasonable quality. And for that matter, some of the best power amps and and headphone amplifiers.
Didn't see that before. Here is their spec right above that description:
SFDR means spurious-free dynamic range. In other words, the difference between your signal peak and highest distortion is 96 dB. If the analyzer is noise-free, and all other distortions are below the one peak, that would make its SINAD just 96 dB. Or barely as good as 16 bit audio! Indeed, you can't even use it to measure an audio device with SFDR of 96 dB as the two distortions would add and resulting measured SINAD would go down to 93 dB.
You just can't use it to measure any DAC of reasonable quality. And for that matter, some of the best power amps and and headphone amplifiers.
I’ll look it up when I get home from work today.Quite off-topic, but which opamp did perform best?
Or does it even matter?
We don't know if they meet it. We would need to verify it.It depends what you want to measure and how... But good thing is that they usually at least meet the specs they state, and usually exceed the specs. But I like conservative specifications - no disappointments. 96 dB SFDR matches with the 16-bit ADC resolution (10 MHz sampling rate).
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.
...what can the Direct Stream DAC DO that a DAC at a 1/3 it's price can't?
Just curious, but did you buy it because of a demo, reviews, or the perceived rep of the company? It's a lot of money for what it does, even if it does it really well.As a PS Audio customer, I am extremely disappointed in Ted's response to all this. This review seems to me to reveal a very clear picture that the DirectStream Dac does not perform as a "hi-fi" DAC should.
So, given the clear deficiencies demonstrated--and let's say for the sake of argument that the deficiencies don't really matter in practice (I think they do)--other than jitter rejection, what can the Direct Stream DAC DO that a DAC at a 1/3 it's price can't?
I'm actually in the process of selling my DS DAC because I've been wanting to explore other options. I'd also like to explore some more amps.
When I was working for a living , anytime a negative review came out, I would devour every bit of detail in there. It seems that we can't get Ted Smith to pay even slightest amount of attention to what measurements are presented to him. Someone was kind enough to post my last sine wave measurements to him and this is his response:
View attachment 34553
Basically he is saying a 16 bit dithered signal never looks clean. That is true. But did he not bother to pay attention to my measurements where a) I specifically said it was 24 bit signals and b) the Matrix DAC produced perfect sine waves at -90 dB?
Here is the data again in full resolution (click for larger size):
PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC:
View attachment 34554
And Matrix Audio Sabre-X MQA Pro:
View attachment 34555
We see that the -90 dB output of Matrix DAC looks nothing like what Ted is showing in his simulation in Adobe Audition. It is a near perfect sine wave unlike the PS Audio DS DAC output which is dwarfed by noise.
This is genius, the best thing I've ever read about the subject.Oh, I agree, and that's my attitude as well but that's not the audiophile's desire. The desire is to attain a type of religious experience with the media. It's a narrative of redemption, a return to Eden, attainment of Nirvana or an epiphany on the road to Damascus. This is a road that is not easy by design otherwise the goal would be attainable to more than just the chosen few. The banality of choosing professionally engineered equipment pales in comparison.
Do you believe that is a conscious effort to actively deceive his followers?