Cost no object dac/streamer

[Roen]

I just use my receiver lol.

 

[Divus]

Having tried quite a few I ended up not using streamed music much because of the inconvenience of finding files for classical music using the standard tagging system. Some people have spent a long time re-tagging to make it useful, I can't be bothered so I mainly play CDs and LPs.
For the occasion I do use streaming I either use Qobuz on my Macbook streamed using Devialet AIR to my Devialet amplifier, or pop music on my iMac to its USB input.
I Play CDs every day, LPs infrequently, Qobuz most days and streaming only every now and again.
I wouldn't change this if it was all free. My experience is that all properly engineered digital front ends sound either the same or so close it makes no difference.
Most of my dissatisfaction is in the area of tagging and multiple different file formats and playing software, not sound quality.

Did you try "Idagio" only classical cd quality... I love it.

 

[rwortman]

This was a long and interesting thread. I would add that, contrary to the popular opinion in the audiophile press, if you are really interested in the spacial aspect of sound reproduction you need a multichannel system. Stereo can do some things with sound stage with and apparent depth but nothing like the sense of being in a completely different space like a good surround system can. In that sense, my best streamer isn't my Rpi/DAC but my AVR.

 

[Laughinglife]

I joined this forum, after reading the majority of this thread, simply to throw out an answer to the streamer question.

Wolf Audio or Antipodes. Either can be had with a ripper. Also use a Mac mini in certain situations. Because, well, cheap and easy.

Curious to dig through the measurement information and hardware/software setups. Lots of good info floating about in here. Thanks guys

What is your choice if everything was free for a dac/streamer?

 

[M00ndancer]

Same here, interesting debate. But since I'm in the pragmatic end of the scale I would use the ChromeCast Audio as a transporter and perhaps one of the SMSL D1 as DAC (Or any other good DAC with features I want). Invest in room correction tools, fixing my listening space. Then using software elsewhere to play my music. It's more about features and convenience. Anything below -90db isn't audible anyway. (CD performance)

To close the circle for me, starting with a known accurate system allows me to tweak for the sound I like across the spectrum of recordings and genre. Starting with an inaccurate system just means more work for me to establish a solid baseline from which to tweak.

What's the consensus on here for a totl dac streamer? Looking for something for my new system that measures well. That doesn't mean is has to cost uber money. Totl performance can be had for much less it seams. I'm looking for the price point.

I'm only concerned with making a 2 channel system that sounds great and filtering through how much I actually need to spend to accomplish that and where in the system to allocate the most money

.

 

[Grizzlily]

Hello everyone.

I am a newbie here ; firstly I was thinking that my all subjective experience could not be in harmony with the scientific solid background of most people who have chosen to post here and share their views and knowledge. So I was going to send the following message @jacobacci alone, then I got some afterthoughts : sharing here my humble thoughts in a post can’t harm no one !

Thank you @ Jacobacci for all the good and patient work !.... Lucky I am to have found in audiosciencereview.com your listening sessions report about DELIUS/PURCELL compared to 5 other DACS which were already those preselected on my own short list !

Many different audiophile friends are pushing me for years to replace my old DCS ELGAR + /VERDI ENCORE combo for one or another of these new DACS. I was not eager to do so and the fact I got now confirmation that none of these DACS were better than the DELIUS/PURCELL .....(even the newer top of the line Chord DAVE with a fulfilled FGPA !), is a very good news!

This corroborate my own subjective findings : each time I have tried listening since years different DACS (carrying my music library with me) in hifi shops and whatever expensive the system was behind, there was always some remaining glare from the sources or something wrong like some softness, sharpness, edginess or dullness, even if other real outstanding qualities could be otherwise there. In my listened DACS list were also at the time : Cary DAC 200 ST, Resonessence Mirus (first iteration), Exasound E32.

It seems from my memories ( using for years the same tracks I know by heart ) that DCS DACS signature shows finally a more balanced naturally extended , clean, deep dug, composed ... and at least for me, true sounding .

Anyway for the real trueness we will never know : it is only a recording and the reproduction of a recording by powered digital/analog gear with multiple boxes + a lot of cables + room accoustic + more or less clean power + your mood : infinite variables !
You own a ROSSINI player : do you think really we are too much accustomed to the DCS sound and biased ..!?

I cannot afford to buy a ROSSINI especially in Thailand where I live and where everything imported is overtaxed . Firstly I was ready to go only for the DCS Network Bridge but since the promise of USB is not hold, I am not sure that worth it anymore : I have in mind to keep my options opened in the future : There is no evident definitive superiority of Ethernet over USB ; all depends on good or bad implementation. So I stay agnostic.

I have no idea how far away my DCs combo is from the BARTOK and the BARTOK from the ROSSINI. I hope you will compare these last two soon and tell us your findings ; even if there is a scientific listening methodology employed, ears stays the final and subjective end of the process !

For the DCS hardware part, the differences are not hidden by DCS ; but for the software part it is not obvious :

• I remember a comparative listening between the DELIUS and ELGAR + back in the days : same sound but the Delius was distinctively « less » ( I cannot be more precise : it is too far back !).
• DCS said ROSSINI will be updated by firmware ; does that means the new BARTOK has the same software or equivalent than the « old » ROSSINI ? .... it will be interesting to listen the 2 versions to know the answer !

Until now I am using temporarily my mac mini server with IFI IDSD MICRO as USB/ SPDIF interface ; my CD rips are upsampled in DSD using the active - with the last software update - digital input of the VERDI ENCORE transport linked by firewire IEE 1394 into the ELGAR+.

I was going to order I guessed to be a better interface, the MATRIX SPDIF 2, in Bangkok but finally if 1) the sounding value of ELGAR + stay so high today and 2) I renounce to go up to the Bartok, the DCS Network Bridge could stay the best reasonnable option just tailored for ELGAR + DAC !

What do you think about it ?

From my humble experience I learned :

- Less cables is better ( cables are common transports for a lot of virus/diseases bad for music reproduction ;

- Less boxes are better ; if LPSU are better used to calm down noisy computers, interfaces, switches, routers ; beyond that I am mot so sure of their usefulness compared to the price asked and it is also product dependent depending of the gear you plug-in and with DCS I am not worried too much !!

Finally I tell you where I stand : My primary system ( amp, speakers, cable) is from AVANT GARDE High End from Switzerland and ready for DSD multichannel waiting for the right DAC ( probably the EXASOUND E38, MERGING NASDAC being too high priced ).

I have kept also my previous stereo system composed with CELLO ( Mark Levinson) AUDIO SUITE preamp + PERFORMANCE 2 mono-blocks amps as a secondary.

With these 2 systems my DCS combo is already in a company which it fits with pretty well according to my taste.

I am not scientist nor engineer or technician ; I love music, I play piano and I go to concerts, that’s all. So if you know another way to better the sound of ELGAR +, please, tell me !

Your advices are welcome.... Thanks in advance for them !

Grizzlily

 

[jacobacci]

@Grizzlily
You are right, this is probably not the perfect forum to talk about subjective matters

Having said that, yes I have installed the V2 firmware to the Rossini, so it now uses DSDx2 upsampling instead of DSDx1. I find it sounds different, I would even say, I prefer the new V2.
Before anyone here yells foul, no I have not done a statistically valid ABX to prove this.
However I have had another experience recently, which I find interesting.
I had the new Neukomm DAC over (Neukomm is a niche Swiss manufacturer). It is ES9028PRO based and I compared it to my Weiss DAC 202 (ES9018 based). If find the two sound very similar (again no ABX). However upon switching over to the dCS Rossini, I found that it sounds VERY different. The soundstage is very different. While the Neukomm and the Weiss project an image akin to sitting in row 15 at a classical concert, the dCS creates a soundstage akin to sitting in row 1 (a bit like sitting inside a huge headphone, being "inside" the soundstage). The row 1 and row 15 analogy came from my wife. I then also connected Chord Hugo 2 to the system and found its soundstage to be somewhere in the middle between the two chip based DACs and the Rossini.
Earlier in this thread we were debating why different DACs sound different.
It seems to me bits are bits, but bits are only bits until they get to the DAC part. Then they get upsampled, oversampled, time corrected, linear phased, minimum phased, what have you. My current conclusion at this point is that

• Good DACs using a similar chipset without any proprietary processing will likely sound very similar, given the only difference is the output stage
• The developer of a DAC using proprietary processing has complete freedom to tailor the sound any way he / she likes

Could it be that dCS / Chord / Playback Designs and others use their own magic sauce to make their DACs sound different / better? Measurements of Hugo 2 by Amir do not support this theory, but I asked before whether we are measuring the right thing (i.e. does what is happening in one channel influence what happens in the other, as it should if soundstage is being "enhanced").
Daniel Weiss has put DSP functionality such as crosstalk cancellation in his DAC502 (also discussed in this forum). The DSP functionality without DAC is now also available as the DSP502 and Daniel is working on a plugin version.
It seems to me that the differences I am hearing (and my hearing is that of a >60 years old) are so substantial that minute differences in filters (such as a minimal phase shift) would not explain them. I suspect some kind of DSP stuff may be at work here.

Back to @Grizzlily 's question: If you would like to extent the life of your dCS stack, then the network bridge will certainly do that from a functional perspective. It will give you ethernet streaming, Roon, Tidal, Qobuz (through Roon), DSD to PCM conversion. Whether it will influence the sound, I have no idea.

 

[Grizzlily]

@Grizzlily
You are right, this is probably not the perfect forum to talk about subjective matters

Having said that, yes I have installed the V2 firmware to the Rossini, so it now uses DSDx2 upsampling instead of DSDx1. I find it sounds different, I would even say, I prefer the new V2.
Before anyone here yells foul, no I have not done a statistically valid ABX to prove this.
However I have had another experience recently, which I find interesting.
I had the new Neukomm DAC over (Neukomm is a niche Swiss manufacturer). It is ES9028PRO based and I compared it to my Weiss DAC 202 (ES9018 based). If find the two sound very similar (again no ABX). However upon switching over to the dCS Rossini, I found that it sounds VERY different. The soundstage is very different. While the Neukomm and the Weiss project an image akin to sitting in row 15 at a classical concert, the dCS creates a soundstage akin to sitting in row 1 (a bit like sitting inside a huge headphone, being "inside" the soundstage). The row 1 and row 15 analogy came from my wife. I then also connected Chord Hugo 2 to the system and found its soundstage to be somewhere in the middle between the two chip based DACs and the Rossini.
Earlier in this thread we were debating why different DACs sound different.
It seems to me bits are bits, but bits are only bits until they get to the DAC part. Then they get upsampled, oversampled, time corrected, linear phased, minimum phased, what have you. My current conclusion at this point is that

• Good DACs using a similar chipset without any proprietary processing will likely sound very similar, given the only difference is the output stage
• The developer of a DAC using proprietary processing has complete freedom to tailor the sound any way he / she likes

Could it be that dCS / Chord / Playback Designs and others use their own magic sauce to make their DACs sound different / better? Measurements of Hugo 2 by Amir do not support this theory, but I asked before whether we are measuring the right thing (i.e. does what is happening in one channel influence what happens in the other, as it should if soundstage is being "enhanced").
Daniel Weiss has put DSP functionality such as crosstalk cancellation in his DAC502 (also discussed in this forum). The DSP functionality without DAC is now also available as the DSP502 and Daniel is working on a plugin version.
It seems to me that the differences I am hearing (and my hearing is that of a >60 years old) are so substantial that minute differences in filters (such as a minimal phase shift) would not explain them. I suspect some kind of DSP stuff may be at work here.

Back to @Grizzlily 's question: If you would like to extent the life of your dCS stack, then the network bridge will certainly do that from a functional perspective. It will give you ethernet streaming, Roon, Tidal, Qobuz (through Roon), DSD to PCM conversion. Whether it will influence the sound, I have no idea.

Thank you @ Jacobacci for the detailed answer. My ears are also > 60 years old now ; I don’t make any claim about their accuracy for any kind of statement and I am a total novice about DSP functionalities. I grew-up audiophile old school trying always to go straight wire with gain avoiding any kind of processing ; but it was at the time of the analog domain supremacy and nowadays the trend is going towards full digital for sound reproduction. Progresses have been made, less approximation and more flexibility in mastering the sound.





Anyway I agree with you that each manufacturer is able to tailor its own sound finally and the differences heard can be substantial. I also agree with you about the row 1 analogy in the perceived soundscape with DCS DACS compared to some others chip based DACS. I did not find Amir Hugo 2 review but the Qtest one.





You are right the improvement with the Network Bridge + NAS will be technical but it can also result a better sounding if the bridge best the mechanical CD transport part of the VERDI ENCORE.





I am not in a hurry and I will wait first to read some reviews of the DCS BARTOK and will go listen to it in Bangkok some days.

 

[Frank Dernie]

@Grizzlily
You are right, this is probably not the perfect forum to talk about subjective matters

Having said that, yes I have installed the V2 firmware to the Rossini, so it now uses DSDx2 upsampling instead of DSDx1. I find it sounds different, I would even say, I prefer the new V2.
Before anyone here yells foul, no I have not done a statistically valid ABX to prove this.
However I have had another experience recently, which I find interesting.
I had the new Neukomm DAC over (Neukomm is a niche Swiss manufacturer). It is ES9028PRO based and I compared it to my Weiss DAC 202 (ES9018 based). If find the two sound very similar (again no ABX). However upon switching over to the dCS Rossini, I found that it sounds VERY different. The soundstage is very different. While the Neukomm and the Weiss project an image akin to sitting in row 15 at a classical concert, the dCS creates a soundstage akin to sitting in row 1 (a bit like sitting inside a huge headphone, being "inside" the soundstage). The row 1 and row 15 analogy came from my wife. I then also connected Chord Hugo 2 to the system and found its soundstage to be somewhere in the middle between the two chip based DACs and the Rossini.
Earlier in this thread we were debating why different DACs sound different.
It seems to me bits are bits, but bits are only bits until they get to the DAC part. Then they get upsampled, oversampled, time corrected, linear phased, minimum phased, what have you. My current conclusion at this point is that

• Good DACs using a similar chipset without any proprietary processing will likely sound very similar, given the only difference is the output stage
• The developer of a DAC using proprietary processing has complete freedom to tailor the sound any way he / she likes

Could it be that dCS / Chord / Playback Designs and others use their own magic sauce to make their DACs sound different / better? Measurements of Hugo 2 by Amir do not support this theory, but I asked before whether we are measuring the right thing (i.e. does what is happening in one channel influence what happens in the other, as it should if soundstage is being "enhanced").
Daniel Weiss has put DSP functionality such as crosstalk cancellation in his DAC502 (also discussed in this forum). The DSP functionality without DAC is now also available as the DSP502 and Daniel is working on a plugin version.
It seems to me that the differences I am hearing (and my hearing is that of a >60 years old) are so substantial that minute differences in filters (such as a minimal phase shift) would not explain them. I suspect some kind of DSP stuff may be at work here.

Back to @Grizzlily 's question: If you would like to extent the life of your dCS stack, then the network bridge will certainly do that from a functional perspective. It will give you ethernet streaming, Roon, Tidal, Qobuz (through Roon), DSD to PCM conversion. Whether it will influence the sound, I have no idea.

Maybe my ears are not golden but after carefully level matched comparisons I could not tell the differences between DACs I have compared.
Maybe my system isn't resolving enough .
OTOH it is resolving enough to hear differences between microphones and microphone positions in my own recordings.
I also hear clear differences between my 4 turntables and also changing pickup cartridge.
I am 100% sure that you can't reliably tell one thing from another by ear over the long term, ie if you don't have 2 Rossinis, one with V1 firmware and the other with V2 and compare them using the same music file any difference you think you may hear is not reliably there.
In the long term my system sounds better some days than others. I have no idea why, probably more to do with my mood than hardware, but if I had changed a component in the meantime I may well judge that the sound was better or worse because of this, which would be wrong.

 

[Sal1950]

In the long term my system sounds better some days than others. I have no idea why, probably more to do with my mood than hardware,

I find it also relating to the particular recording I happen to throw on that day. A good recording seems to put me more in the mood to appreciate the system.

 

[graz_lag]

I find it also relating to the particular recording I happen to throw on that day. A good recording seems to put me more in the mood to appreciate the system.

Indeed, and there is the placebo effect after inserting a new component in the chain : because you believe you should hear better sound, you will hear better sound in fact because you are focusing.

 

[Soniclife]

I find it also relating to the particular recording I happen to throw on that day. A good recording seems to put me more in the mood to appreciate the system.

It's taken me too long to work out that if my impression yesterday was that my system was a bit off, and I hadn't been making changes recently, to start the next days listening with something that sounds great, it like a reset button.

 

[garbulky]

Maybe my ears are not golden but after carefully level matched comparisons I could not tell the differences between DACs I have compared.
Maybe my system isn't resolving enough .
OTOH it is resolving enough to hear differences between microphones and microphone positions in my own recordings.
I also hear clear differences between my 4 turntables and also changing pickup cartridge.
I am 100% sure that you can't reliably tell one thing from another by ear over the long term, ie if you don't have 2 Rossinis, one with V1 firmware and the other with V2 and compare them using the same music file any difference you think you may hear is not reliably there.
In the long term my system sounds better some days than others. I have no idea why, probably more to do with my mood than hardware, but if I had changed a component in the meantime I may well judge that the sound was better or worse because of this, which would be wrong.

I do very amateur stereo microphone recordings (no close micing). I love the results but I would be interested in finding out other ways that of doing it that aren't time consuming.

 

[jacobacci]

Maybe my ears are not golden but after carefully level matched comparisons I could not tell the differences between DACs I have compared.

I offered a theory in my post as to why I could be hearing these substantial differences in soundstaging, which I do not find subtle or hard to hear at all. No golden ears needed.
Question: Have you compared other DACs to dCS gear (not meant in a flippant manner).
I would subscribe immediately to the view that DACs, whose designers do not willingly introduce a particular sound signature / soundstage dimensionality (through DSP) in their product sound very similar, probably to the point where you cannot easily tell them apart. This was the case with the Weiss DAC202 and the Neukomm DAC. Identical for practical purposes. A Benchmark DAC3 or an RME ADI2 DAC would probably be the same.
However the dCS is so different in its presentation, that the only explanation I have is that dCS willingly tailor the filters to achieve their "house sound". It is a very beautiful sound and a fascinating soundstage, but it is definitely not like the other DACs I listened to (see also my descriptions on the evaluation sessions earlier in this thread). And dCS always refer to their unique FPGA based filters.
That sound can be manipulated is obvious. Daniel Weiss specifically includes DSP functionality in his DAC502 for this very purpose. I am sure no one on this forum will claim that a DAC502 with DSP engaged will sound the same as any other DAC.
Pls note that I am not claiming "neutral" or "colored" is better or worse.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I offered a theory in my post as to why I could be hearing these substantial differences in soundstaging, which I do not find subtle or hard to hear at all. No golden ears needed.
Question: Have you compared other DACs to dCS gear (not meant in a flippant manner).
I would subscribe immediately to the view that DACs, whose designers do not willingly introduce a particular sound signature / soundstage dimensionality (through DSP) in their product sound very similar, probably to the point where you cannot easily tell them apart. This was the case with the Weiss DAC202 and the Neukomm DAC. Identical for practical purposes. A Benchmark DAC3 or an RME ADI2 DAC would probably be the same.
However the dCS is so different in its presentation, that the only explanation I have is that dCS willingly tailor the filters to achieve their "house sound". It is a very beautiful sound and a fascinating soundstage, but it is definitely not like the other DACs I listened to (see also my descriptions on the evaluation sessions earlier in this thread). And dCS always refer to their unique FPGA based filters.
That sound can be manipulated is obvious. Daniel Weiss specifically includes DSP functionality in his DAC502 for this very purpose. I am sure no one on this forum will claim that a DAC502 with DSP engaged will sound the same as any other DAC.
Pls note that I am not claiming "neutral" or "colored" is better or worse.

I have a dCS P8i, an early one of there’s in a simpler, hence cheaper, enclosure.
I can confirm that the different filters sound different, but, for me, this is no surprise since they change the frequency response.
I did not know about any DSP being added recently, I must look into that.
The dCS was very good, but no different to the others using the filter which complies most closely with the Nyquist-Shannon theorem IME.
I have heard the dCS kit quite often, my local dealer sells it.

 

[jacobacci]

I have a dCS P8i, an early one of there’s in a simpler, hence cheaper, enclosure.
I can confirm that the different filters sound different, but, for me, this is no surprise since they change the frequency response.
I did not know about any DSP being added recently, I must look into that.
The dCS was very good, but no different to the others using the filter which complies most closely with the Nyquist-Shannon theorem IME.
I have heard the dCS kit quite often, my local dealer sells it.

Different filters do sound different. I am just surprised at the amount of difference I am hearing. And the thing is that none of the dCS filters makes the Rossini sound like the other two DACs.
Are you saying that the dCS at your dealers' sound pretty much like the other DACs he has in the store?

 

[Purité Audio]

You should try comparing two oversampling DACs without knowing which one is playing ask a friend to switch inputs, report back.
Keith

 

[jacobacci]

You should try comparing two oversampling DACs without knowing which one is playing ask a friend to switch inputs, report back.
Keith

Thanks, Keith
I have done so extensively in this thread and responded to all the pertinent questions re. test methodology and system setup.
I sort of knew we would end up there again. "They all sound the same, don't bother".
Could it be that a manufacturer does not want his DACs to sound the same as all the others and have a House sound?

 

[Frank Dernie]

Are you saying that the dCS at your dealers' sound pretty much like the other DACs he has in the store?

That is not a test I would try to do at a dealers, only at home, but I have heard the dCS kit often and found it excellent sounding but not at a higher level than I hear at home myself. There has never been a "I must get a home demo" moment with it.

 

[jacobacci]

Thanks Frank, fair enough.