I guess this pre-amp/processer as was designed for the "money is not an issue" crowd of buyers. As noted by Amir, the "10" series model appeared to sell in the $15K range, while the next version up in their chain, the "20" series sold for about $19K. I was checking out some YouTube searches on this processor to get more familiar with it. I stumbled across a video by Steve Guttenberg from 2015 when he praised the "20" series processer for its performance in a theater setting at an audio store with Focal Electra speakers and JL Audio subwoofers. Again, take that with a grain of salt because that's just one person's perspective. At this point in my life, I'm done with home theater. Focusing only on 2.2 setups and 100% happier. If you think 2 channel audio has a grip on your wallet, then consider all the costs in staying current with a full home theater setup. That's where one can continue to drop huge amounts of cash because of all the changes and developments that occur in home theater every two years.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Datasat LS10 AV Processor Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
audioBliss
Active Member
According to Dolby the tracks should not be mastered to a specific speaker count..but in reality who knows what studios are doing.
https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/te...atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf
However, there are studios that are rumored to pre-render to specific setups like I've read in many places that Disney does this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...rs-and-marvel-soundtracks-wrong/#671ad97fef64
Not only do we have a number of issues in the AVRs we then have to deal with that bass is often filtered out below 30Hz in movies, tracks are incorrectly mixed, etc. etc.
audioBliss
Active Member
It's a better time than ever to get into 2 channel audio for sure. There are plenty of Pre-amp/DACs and amps out there now which have world class performance for not too much money. That said you will still be limited A LOT by the room. The treatments seen on Youtube that people are building are all well and good but the biggest problem is the bass in the room. And to fix the bass with passive treatment i very difficult to get right even for a pro. And that's where multi-sub and room correction software comes into play, and to get that you more or less have to get an AVR/P.
The best 2-channel listening I've done in my room is with Dirac Live + Bass Control + multiple subwoofers. You can listen to only 2 channel with an AV processor and just use it for bass management if you want to add subwoofers, use the room correction as well as a nice hub to connect all kinds of sources to. No need to upgrade it just because 8K or whatever is around the corner. Some of the two channel stuff out there is pretty expensive as well so I think it's not too crazy actually to buy an AV processor just for two channel. There are way cheaper alternatives out there than Datasat but one has to decide if ~100dB SINAD + room correction(AV processor) is superior to ~120dB SINAD with no room correction(2 channel gear). Just throwing the thought out there.
I think 2 channel audio for TV/movie can be pretty well satisfied with a simple/cheap miniDSP (& UMIK-1 for measurement w/ REW) driven just by the analog audio out of the TV along with some active speakers:
https://www.minidsp.com/products/minidsp-in-a-box/minidsp-2x4
That's what I got, has the capability to add a sub to that too, but don't need/want that personally.
I originally had the 2x4 HD. About a month back, I paid for the upgrade and a microphone to take it to a DDRC-24 so that I could use Dirac Live!. I've been moving a lot of speakers around and decided to stay with the Wharfedale Linton Heritage. Yesterday, the process took about 15 minutes to gather about 12 readings with the microphone from the indicated positions. REW is a great product, but Dirac Live! makes the process quite a bit easier. I also have 2 subwoofers integrated into the mix, courtesy of the MiniDSP. I have a good camera tri-pod and ended up buying a $3.00 adapter so that I could connect the UMIK-1 microphone properly to the tripod as opposed to using their mini tripod that comes with the microphone. Out of all the money I've invested in audio, the $450 for the DDRC-24 and microphone has certainly been one of the best investments. I can't even begin to add up all the money in previous components that I've sold off because it was hard to integrate subwoofers, or the gear didn't sound good to me. In reality, it was most likely my room that I had the gear in and Dirac Live! would have gone great distances to correct some of those issues.
"This Datasat LS10 review shows what we have known for a while: that the AV industry walked away from great technical performance long time ago."
That, plus the complexity of surround sound, is why I gave in a few weeks ago and got a soundbar. I feel dirty and yet... liberated. It's so nice to be able to just hit power on the tv remote and have the sound simply work instead of handling three remotes, selecting inputs, and then adjusting the volume. It even has better dialogue clarity.
That, plus the complexity of surround sound, is why I gave in a few weeks ago and got a soundbar. I feel dirty and yet... liberated. It's so nice to be able to just hit power on the tv remote and have the sound simply work instead of handling three remotes, selecting inputs, and then adjusting the volume. It even has better dialogue clarity.
infinitesymphony
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,072
- Likes
- 1,809
I think some people around here are doing that, using a device to decode to PCM and then sending pairs off to stereo DACs and power amps.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #48
We are mostly there too. We have a dedicated theater but instead watch movies on TV with 2 channel system.
Logitech Harmony remotes; not cheap, but 1 button “actions“ for which ever source (cable box, Apple TV, Blu-ray, etc.) you want, plus customizable quick select buttons (for instance I switch between music & movie stereo->surround upmixing, one duplicates the vocals to the center and one extracts it).
My uncle got a sound bar, and now he needs to use its remote for volume but the cable box remote for cable tv, and then the tv remote if he ever uses the smart apps. His cable box remote can’t learn the soundbar volume, so no workaround other than simply buying a universal remote.
martijn86
Active Member
Ah yeah. When the line
format c in autoexec.bat would actually execute on the next boot. I bet libraries and schools still remember.It doesn’t make sense to judge these devices on whether their audio performance matches the best stand alone DAC. Once performance is above the level that can be perceived resources spent on improving audio performance are wasteful. The cost is borne by someone for no discernible benefit to the end user.
I’m baffled by the focus on ASR of pure audio performance as being a measure of suitability of a product. I’ve come across numerous discussions here where people are agonizing over these imperceptible differences when it comes making ‘real world’ purchasing decisions.
On the other hand there are numerous criteria that demand evaluation if you want to have a system that is fit for your purpose.
I think Amir does a good job at referencing the other qualities besides audio performance in the reviews but the focus is on absolute audio performance. (It’s really electrical performance on non-speaker reviews.
This is interesting to me from a technical point of view but I think to lose focus on how a piece of consumer works overall is questionable for reviews intended for consumers.
This creates ironic inversions:
Adding cost to a complex product like this to obtain performance beyond what is perceptible is in some sense poor engineering. Especially for boutique companies which struggle to stable market fit and profitability.
In a similar way, if a user of audio gear spends more to get this super audio performance then the review which revealed this performance did a disservice to the user. Once it gets in an audiophile’s mind that their product ‘ranks lower’ on some scale it can become a kind of mental virus, intruding on enjoyment of listening to music or movies. The ‘virus’ can sometimes ‘breakout’ of a single person’s mind and ‘infect’ enough other people that it becomes a reputational issue for the brand/company!
It’s weird.
The mindset creates the exact same problem as is found in the ‘subjectivist’ audiophile space.
I’m baffled by the focus on ASR of pure audio performance as being a measure of suitability of a product. I’ve come across numerous discussions here where people are agonizing over these imperceptible differences when it comes making ‘real world’ purchasing decisions.
On the other hand there are numerous criteria that demand evaluation if you want to have a system that is fit for your purpose.
I think Amir does a good job at referencing the other qualities besides audio performance in the reviews but the focus is on absolute audio performance. (It’s really electrical performance on non-speaker reviews.
This is interesting to me from a technical point of view but I think to lose focus on how a piece of consumer works overall is questionable for reviews intended for consumers.
This creates ironic inversions:
Adding cost to a complex product like this to obtain performance beyond what is perceptible is in some sense poor engineering. Especially for boutique companies which struggle to stable market fit and profitability.
In a similar way, if a user of audio gear spends more to get this super audio performance then the review which revealed this performance did a disservice to the user. Once it gets in an audiophile’s mind that their product ‘ranks lower’ on some scale it can become a kind of mental virus, intruding on enjoyment of listening to music or movies. The ‘virus’ can sometimes ‘breakout’ of a single person’s mind and ‘infect’ enough other people that it becomes a reputational issue for the brand/company!
It’s weird.
The mindset creates the exact same problem as is found in the ‘subjectivist’ audiophile space.
infinitesymphony
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,072
- Likes
- 1,809
Agreed, but this device--the #2 rated AVR so far--barely makes tier 2 (100+ dB SINAD) in terms of DAC performance. It's bested by DACs that cost less than $100. For $12,500 it might be nice to have performance closer to SOTA even if it involves manufacturers reaching out to incorporate others' DAC technologies, similarly to what's happening in the amplifier world with Hypex modules.
I was being a bit pedantic with my comment. So sure, if two pieces are very close in other important criteria might as well take the best audio performance.
But it seems like many of the AVRs tested have serious functional issues: malfunction or poor interface design. I think a device that was rock solid in the actual user features is well worth sacrificing absolute audio performance.
I’m sure many folks here share my frustration at not being able to piece together systems that really work optimally.
I’m always on the hunt for a reasonable priced amp with actual parametric EQ, Bluetooth, and USB input. It seems like will all the DSP chips available it should be doable for $500 or so. Haven’t found it so far. The closest are some plate amps but they lack USB input.
I would gladly sacrifice audio performance for this set of features, especially if came in a smaller package that these AV behemoths!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #54
What cost are we talking about? From what I have found online, this processor uses TI/BurBrown PCM4104 DAC. This is a DAC chip that came out in 2004 (yes, 16 years ago). It cost $3/unit. You are paying well over $10,000 for a processor and the heart of it cost so little. They must be preserving the architecture of their original processors that came out years ago as there is no other reason to use DAC chips like this.
That aside, performance if often reliant on proper implementation in a DAC, not how much money is thrown at it. We have $100 DACs with superb performance.
But let's say there is there is extra cost involved for better performance. Go head and charge another $1000. It is not like they were retail cost constrained in pricing this unit.
The question of being bested by a cheap DAC is arguably not all that important. I do agree that there is a huge amount to consider in a AVR or AV processor. One could buy the JBL with Dante. Add your own DACs or even digital active speakers. Then it is just down to a digital product.
And indeed, there is a lot to worry about just in this domain. We have seen all manner of stupid fails of even relatively simple aspects of software integration. One might hope that what you get for your money with a true high end AV product is vastly improved software, as there is scant else to be seen for the money.
The vagaries and IP fiefdoms in the AV world make this difficult at best. Software does not lend itself to niche players with a small customer base. Good software is hard and takes a lot of resources. Matching the end price to sales numbers and market expectations is non-trivial and you can easily find yourself with a no-win product.
But, indeed, there is little to no really useful and objective information about what you get for your money when it comes to the software, despite it being the dominant cost. This is in large part to it being really hard to do so. It is trivial to take a few distortion and noise measurements. To drill into the software stack is going to take a lot of cross domain expertise and take a heck of a long time. And there are no simple metrics.
The market is still controlled by the IP owners and they have a vested interest in making things hard for consumers. Nobody makes what the market needs because that would undercut long term profit.
And indeed, there is a lot to worry about just in this domain. We have seen all manner of stupid fails of even relatively simple aspects of software integration. One might hope that what you get for your money with a true high end AV product is vastly improved software, as there is scant else to be seen for the money.
The vagaries and IP fiefdoms in the AV world make this difficult at best. Software does not lend itself to niche players with a small customer base. Good software is hard and takes a lot of resources. Matching the end price to sales numbers and market expectations is non-trivial and you can easily find yourself with a no-win product.
But, indeed, there is little to no really useful and objective information about what you get for your money when it comes to the software, despite it being the dominant cost. This is in large part to it being really hard to do so. It is trivial to take a few distortion and noise measurements. To drill into the software stack is going to take a lot of cross domain expertise and take a heck of a long time. And there are no simple metrics.
The market is still controlled by the IP owners and they have a vested interest in making things hard for consumers. Nobody makes what the market needs because that would undercut long term profit.
Lol.... People that buy a Datasat processor don't normally program the device themselves. It's normally done by a custom installer. Only the nerdier folk will get there hands dirty.
A sizable chunk of what you are paying for with these devices is the ongoing after sales support and firmware updates that continue for longer than your Denon which is superceded after 12 months or maybe 2 years if it is the top end model.
Their business model isn't based on people upgrading / replacing their AVR / Processor every year or 2.
Other factors these higher end devices generally have more configuration flexibility, but of course this can come at the cost of user friendliness and often requires training to use to it's highest potential. A good example of this are the Trinnov processors.
For some these things aren't an important factor, so for them better sticking with a Demon/Marantz, Yamaha or something like that, which of course is totally fine as some people prefer to get the latest model each year for example.
End of the day I don't think any of them will perform significantly higher than the data set you already have, though there is probably a good chance they won't be "broken" in some way or another like some of the mid priced boutique brands, because the invest significant dollars in development of the software side of the device to to get stability closer or the same as the big brands.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,449
- Likes
- 4,818
Which kind of works, until some hardware compatibility/new standard arises. At that point, some of those device makers *may* offer board upgrades that usually happen to be more expensive than something like a 4700H...
True, but the upgrade normally has software development associated with it that last more than a few years. You still have the ongoing benefit of the flexibility of being able to use the the Processor to provide the active crossovers and so on for a multiway, multi channel speaker system, which a 4700H can't do, so if you needed active crossover capability of example you need an external device for crossover management and external amplification for that which then drives up the total cost of the solution.
End of the day it comes down to use case and what's important to you.
What you do need to be careful of is that some of the boutique companies that offer Hardware upgradabilty don't deliver. Emotiva for example doesn't have a particularly good track record for this, Theta digital and StormAudio seem to be quite good, but of course much more expensive. Not sure if there are any cheaper brands that have a good track record of hardware upgradeability.
