Review and Measurements of PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC

[BillG]

What I don’t like is the apparent guise of science to routinely damage hard earned reputations of many excellent companies and their products.

Hahahaha! No, they do that themselves by releasing poorly engineered products! Hahahaha!

 

[Krunok]

. And I am also considering what @beefkabob is saying: future may be active speakers.

If I have to guess the future I would say that future lies in active wireless speakers which will be driven by mobile phones, personal computers or headless streamers.

 

[Eirikur]

I am owning a TotalDAC. Whatever measures, strange behavior of the designer and horrible comments here, I am not complaining with the sound. With ASR I discovered the Matrix Element X. Fantastic! (Not so much the app nor the configuration process. But works perfectly with Roon). They are now on my main music system and I am spending more and more time with the Element X. I cannot say however that thanks to its fabulous measurements I am rediscovering my records vs TotalDAC.

Finally, during the past years I have regularly listened to PS Audio DAC and I almost always didn’t like what I’ve heard. So some years back, the choice for TotalDAC. Thanks to ASR, I may now understand why I was missing something when listening to PS Audio.

But it also means that negative measures don't imply the same when it comes to sound. At least in my personal experience.

I would like to thank you @FredYves (was it your TotalDAC measured here?) for your candid responses and relaxed attitude towards some of the very harsh comments beating down the gear you own.
It is always good to weigh the measurements against real-world experience, especially from someone as open minded as you seem to be.

 

[MZKM]

doesn't recreate the music successfully.

One of the reviewers at Stereophile already did this. In comparing the Benchmark DAC3 to a worse measuring one (Border Patrol), the reviewer said the Benchmark removed the sounds of the church walls in a recording he listened to...

 

[BDWoody]

I would like to thank you @FredYves (was it your TotalDAC measured here?) for your candid responses and relaxed attitude towards some of the very harsh comments beating down the gear you own.
It is always good to weigh the measurements against real-world experience, especially from someone as open minded as you seem to be.

Indeed. Too often people defend their choices as though they were children...

 

[Krunok]

One of the reviewers at Stereophile already did this. In comparing the Benchmark DAC3 to worse measuring one (Border Patrol), the reviewer said the Benchmark removed the sounds of the church walls in a recording he listened to...

That's a joke, right?

 

[MZKM]

That's a joke, right?

https://www.stereophile.com/content/nothing-what-i-want#8663zrxmWWfSH8wK.99
“I use Chesky recording sessions to review headphones because I can compare what I hear live to the sound coming off the so-called “mike feed.” The Border Patrol DAC reproduced the church walls, the reverb, the positions on the floor where the musicians were standing, and all the subtle breathiness of Macy Gray’s voice. With the Benchmark, the majority of that information (which is definitely on the master file and appears via David’s $100K MSB DAC and via my Holo Spring DAC) disappeared !!! Your neutral DAC “stripped” away information that is unquestionably on the master file. Not to mention the BM DAC made it sound hard cold and harmonically threadbare. I call this subtractive distortion. Did you measure any of that?”
“Subtractive distortion”, never heard that before.

 

[Thomas savage]

I think what tends to happen in these high end boutique companies is the designers find themselves bereft of any kind of peer review system , they are often working on their own in environments that are self affirming and find themselves insulated from any kind of constructive criticism that you would have from work colleagues in a larger outfit.

This leads to mistakes , not because theses guys are poor unknowing fools but it's the environments they work in imo. It's a seductive and rather slippery slope these guys find themselves on.

Iv seen this first hand and we have seen this several times on ASR. Unfortunately often these boutique companies can all too easily support and help manifest a ego affirming paradise , we have seen the results.

In this particular case the fact a company as famed as PS audio choses to invest so little in test equipment tells its own story.

 

[Rja4000]

“Subtractive distortion”, never heard that before.

I can think of a similitude.
Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Say I have a camera with a 48Mpixels sensor.
I can either record the image as-is, in which case, I have a crazy resolution, but quite a lot of noise, or, say, down-sample it to 12Mpixels by averaging 2x2 pixels, and decrease the noise.
Of course, I then loose some details. How much of those details are relevant is dependent of what you want in your image. Sometimes, details are what matters. Sometimes, a smoother, more immediately readable image is what you want (you may then go even further in the averaging process).
You may also want to add some "high frequency noise" to the image to make it look better, in case you have recurrent low frequency "distortion" pattern in your image (think moire, as an example) and you want to attenuate it.
Measuring dynamic range, resolution and so on, you would obviously see differences... that may not be as relevant as the "effect" on your output. You may well like the "broken" image better.

I guess same rules may apply in audio ?

Of course, just like in audio, I'd rather have the pure 48Mp image and decide by myself what I'll do with it in post treatment.

Salt to taste.

 

[AudioSceptic]

I have a bit of an odd question pertaining to the PS Audio DS DAC - I have the Junior, and I always liked it, while at the same time I realize it may not be "hi fidelity" but at the time I purchased it, it was one of few out there with networked roon integration and all the other features I needed.

Anyways, after this review, I picked up a balanced Grace SDAC for comparison. I volume matched them and am using an XLR switcher fed into my headamp (bryston BHA-1). This allowed me to seamlessly switch between the two to really call out the differences. The one odd thing I noticed is that the PS Audio dac is slow. Yes, its delayed compared to the grace dac (not much, but some), but its also playing at a slightly slower speed. Its not always apparent, but I noticed it on a track by Daft Punk and I'm honestly a bit stumped. It was slight, but definitely there and noticeable in parts with fast beats. I wish I had a way to measure or record what I'm hearing, but I don't

Does anyone have any thoughts or clues as to why this might happen?

Does your computer have a digital audio input? Most Macs do.

 

[VintageFlanker]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/nothing-what-i-want#8663zrxmWWfSH8wK.99
“I use Chesky recording sessions to review headphones because I can compare what I hear live to the sound coming off the so-called “mike feed.” The Border Patrol DAC reproduced the church walls, the reverb, the positions on the floor where the musicians were standing, and all the subtle breathiness of Macy Gray’s voice. With the Benchmark, the majority of that information (which is definitely on the master file and appears via David’s $100K MSB DAC and via my Holo Spring DAC) disappeared !!! Your neutral DAC “stripped” away information that is unquestionably on the master file. Not to mention the BM DAC made it sound hard cold and harmonically threadbare. I call this subtractive distortion. Did you measure any of that?”
“Subtractive distortion”, never heard that before.

Well, the guy is either mad or deaf. Or simpler than that: he's lying.

Anyway,

50K views in 6 days. On par with the Totaldac review's popularity. A lot of people are talking about this on many forums.

Even if the majority are keep crying and trying to discredit @amirm (with no valuable arguments but he's an ignorant and deaf random guy), some are starting to doubt. For these few ones, the purpose of ASR is accomplished. And that has to be the message to all "High-end" audio companies:

Please get back to work to build a performant DAC for your customers.

 

[Krunok]

Of course, just like in audio, I'd rather have the pure 48Mp image and decide by myself what I'll do with it in post treatment.

Salt to taste.

When I was buying acoustic guitar I tested few dozens of them until I found one that sounded well to me because that is what I'm expecting from the instrument.

When I was buying DAC I looked at master table of all DACs being measured here and picked Topping D10 as it measured reasonaby well and had SPDIF out which I needed.

The difference in the approach comes from the difference in my expectations and I am not expecting my DAC to "sound" well, I am expecting it to precisely play what has been recorded.

 

[georgeT]

I think high end companies will just use the distortion graphs for marketing purposes, and wear it as a a badge of honor. The guys over at PS Audio are already doing it if you read the thread about amir's measurements.

 

[PierreV]

But it also means that negative measures don't imply the same when it comes to sound. At least in my personal experience.

That's also my impression, based on owning a bunch of different components, some with stellar other with less than stellar measurements.

While I definitely subscribe to the "start with totally transparent, tweak to taste" philosophy, I can't say measurement differences often translate into audible differences. One of the factors, imho, is that most theoretical discussions into audibility always focus on one extreme ability as in "yes, people can hear distortion at that level" "yes, people can hear noise at that level", etc... with the support of good science, but science-based on protocols that were optimized (as they should) to test a specific aspect without confounding factors. While I do not dispute the individual results of such experiments, I have serious doubts as far as the ability of our ears and brain to multitask at their maximum discrimination abilities is concerned.

And, as a bonus, I'd probably end up deaf if I focused on comparing SNR between my setups

 

[Krunok]

But it also means that negative measures don't imply the same when it comes to sound. At least in my personal experience.

Most DACs with not so good measurements would still indeed sound very decent, but why bother with them when these days you can have a DAC which measures well for a very reasonable ammount of money.

 

[MZKM]

Say I have a camera with a 48Mpixels sensor.
I can either record the image as-is, in which case, I have a crazy resolution, but quite a lot of noise, or, say, down-sample it to 12Mpixels by averaging 2x2 pixels, and decrease the noise.
Of course, I then loose some details. How much of those details are relevant is dependent of what you want in your image. Sometimes, details are what matters. Sometimes, a smoother, more immediately readable image is what you want (you may then go even further in the averaging process).

I mean, I don’t see how that analogy works for this. Maybe if comparing a DAC with almost no harmonic distortion but a high noise floor compared to a DAC with decent harmonic distortion but low noise floor. Now, the Border Patrol DAC has magnitudes more distortion than the Benchmark, so maybe that Stereophile reviewer preferred it; however, to claim that the Benchmark is actively destroying your music (by subtracting audio), is a very slimy thing to do.

 

[Krunok]

however, to claim that the Benchmark is actively destroying your music (by subtracting audio), is a very slimy thing to do.

IMO he totally lost his credibility with that claim.

 

[BDWoody]

IMO he totally lost his credibility with that claim.

All I can hope, is that their shady, frightened responses will be a bit of a caution sign for those who haven't already been assimilated. Those who have been, need only the tiniest straw to grasp...which is all they are getting at this point.

 

[anmpr1]

IMO he totally lost his credibility with that claim.

Since when has Stereophile ever been about 'credibility'? Maybe when Gordon was running it in the '60s. But since the Atkinson era? Since then it's pretty much been about incredibility.

 

[GrimSurfer]

One of the factors, imho, is that most theoretical discussions into audibility always focus on one extreme ability as in "yes, people can hear distortion at that level" "yes, people can hear noise at that level", etc... with the support of good science, but science-based on protocols that were optimized (as they should) to test a specific aspect without confounding factors. While I do not dispute the individual results of such experiments, I have serious doubts as far as the ability of our ears and brain to multitask at their maximum discrimination abilities is concerned.

I believe this is referred to as listening fatigue.