dCS Bartók Measurements by GoldenSound

[Jimbob54]

What portion of the concept were you wondering of? The exagerations, or the clearly straight up false advertising when they say "unrivaled in sonic and technical performance"?

It's shocking value, its not the best performer nor was it at the time of release. But come on, let's not pretend they are any worse than any other manufacturer in any other industry either.

The whole raison d'etre of this site is to cut through the marketing BS and add a degree of reality and with a bit of luck get manufs to publish legit specs. Wont stop the ludicrous marketing BS

 

[Jimbob54]

Claims of state of the art hi fi performance. You can find many such claims in their website.

Defined as? Fluff, all of it. Find a spec they have incorrectly stated and there is a point.

 

[Jimbob54]

Probably the best lager in the world

The ultimate driving machine

Engineered like no other car in the world

The best a man can get


Save the pitchforks and outrage for the real charlatans that claim specs that bear no relation to actual performance. Its a "nice" dac with adequate performance for a ridiculous price tag

 

[aj625]

Cut the crap. They should have used the high profit margin to design a better product like mola mola dac or other dacs measured in asr.

Defined as? Fluff, all of it. Find a spec they have incorrectly stated and there is a point.

 

[Jimbob54]

Cut the crap. They should have used the high profit margin to design a better product like mola mola dac or other dacs measured in asr.

Why? I'm sure they sell plenty. I'm also sure they have plenty of satisfied if slightly gullible customers

 

[aj625]

Why? I'm sure they sell plenty. I'm also sure they have plenty of satisfied if slightly gullible customers

See the power of measurements. At least we have started agreeing of people being fooled by sub standard ultra expensive products. Bigger problem is that the tactics they resort to by planting favorable reviews everywhere.

 

[Jimbob54]

See the power of measurements. At least we have started agreeing of people being fooled by sub standard ultra expensive products. Bigger problem is that the tactics they resort to by planting favorable reviews everywhere.

I wholly agree that is far more insidious than marketing fluff

 

[charleski]

But, but, but

How does it SOUND?!?!?!

Given that the chassis seems fairly sturdy, I'd imagine it sounds a reasonably decent thunk when you hit it...

 

[Jimbob54]

Given that the chassis seems fairly sturdy, I'd imagine it sounds a reasonably decent thunk when you hit it...

Or a causes throaty scream when you drop it on your toe

 

[Robin L]

Or a causes throaty scream when you drop it on your toe

1966. A Boy's Club camp in the mountains above San Bernardino. 'Round the fire, one of young men who worked at the camp [the one with the James Brown album] told us the story of the "Splish". It's one of those shaggy dog tales that takes forever to finalize, the sort of thing that could hold your attention on a starry night before the campfire. I'll ruin the joke by getting to the point: someone has a "great idea" for the military, goes to the Air Force, Marines & Army basically told to get out of here. The Navy says yes. His idea is to gather a giant block of gold, wrap it in red velvet and chains. It's dropped off the long end of a massive ship from a great height into the water below. Makes a very loud "SPLISH". The man responsible for this invention/experiment jumps up and down, yelling "Success!"

I'll bet the DCS Bartok would make a better, bigger, bolder sound when dropped into the ocean in this manner than my Topping E30, much less an Apple dongle.

The DCS Vivaldi stack would be even better than that.

 

[Jimbob54]

1966. A Boy's Club camp in the mountains above San Bernardino. 'Round the fire, one of young men who worked at the camp [the one with the James Brown album] told us the story of the "Splish". It's one of those shaggy dog tales that takes forever to finalize, the sort of thing that could hold your attention on a starry night before the campfire. I'll ruin the joke by getting to the point: someone has a "great idea" for the military, goes to the Air Force, Marines & Army basically told to get out of here. The Navy says yes. His idea is to gather a giant block of gold, wrap it in red velvet and chains. It's dropped off the long end of a massive ship from a great height into the water below. Makes a very loud "SPLISH". The man responsible for this invention/experiment jumps up and down, yelling "Success!"

I'll bet the DCS Bartok would make a better, bigger, bolder sound when dropped into the ocean in this manner than my Topping E30, much less an Apple dongle.

The DCS Vivaldi stack would be even better than that.

View attachment 159240

Kerrrthunk!

 

[Robin L]

Kerrrthunk!

SPLISH!!!!!!

I guess a reviewer would describe this as a "Liquid Midrange".

 

[Jimbob54]

SPLISH!!!!!!

I guess a reviewer would describe this as a "Liquid Midrange".

Goes deep, real deep. Plumbs the depths.

 

[Tks]

It's shocking value, its not the best performer nor was it at the time of release. But come on, let's not pretend they are any worse than any other manufacturer in any other industry either.

The whole raison d'etre of this site is to cut through the marketing BS and add a degree of reality and with a bit of luck get manufs to publish legit specs. Wont stop the ludicrous marketing BS

There’s a problem with the line of reasoning. You say it’s an attempt at shock value, right? But then conclude we should not pretend they are any worse than any other manufacturer. If they’re all the same, then how could that possibly be shock value? Surely you don’t take their marketing team to be bigger morons than the customers swayed by such advertising?

Also I can just grant your point for the sake of argument. Even if every single manufacturer straight up lies, and does it more than these guys do, it’s still the case that they’re making false advertising claims about unrivaled performance.

Oh and as for claims other companies make, those are virtually trademarked claims with no real false advertising. “Probably the best lager” that’s obviously an opinion and not a declaration that it is the best lager (also best at what isn’t defined). The best a man can get (same thing, best what? It’s a rhyme that is preceded by the word Gillette). The ultimate driving machine (too nebulous to mean anything, they don’t even call it a car, a driving machine is anything, and “the ultimate” is even more vague than the others talking about “the best”). “Engineered like no other” can be a true claim since no car company engineers things the same exact way.

Like if this company said “unrivaled auditory experience” or “the best music you’ll ever hear” or the “ultimate DAC”. All those can be opinion pieces since none of them are explicitly speaking about an objectively evaluateable standard. But when you talk about sonic performance. That’s directly a measurable claim.

That’s the relevant differentiation in this instance. It’s not nebulous, and we know exactly what they’re talking about when they make such a claim.

 

[Jimbob54]

There’s a problem with the line of reasoning. You say it’s an attempt at shock value, right? But then conclude we should not pretend they are any worse than any other manufacturer. If they’re all the same, then how could that possibly be shock value? Surely you don’t take their marketing team to be bigger morons than the customers swayed by such advertising?

Also I can just grant your point for the sake of argument. Even if every single manufacturer straight up lies, and does it more than these guys do, it’s still the case that they’re making false advertising claims about unrivaled performance.

Oh and as for claims other companies make, those are virtually trademarked claims with no real false advertising. “Probably the best lager” that’s obviously an opinion and not a declaration that it is the best lager (also best at what isn’t defined). The best a man can get (same thing, best what? It’s a rhyme that is preceded by the word Gillette). The ultimate driving machine (too nebulous to mean anything, they don’t even call it a car, a driving machine is anything, and “the ultimate” is even more vague than the others talking about “the best”). “Engineered like no other” can be a true claim since no car company engineers things the same exact way.

Like if this company said “unrivaled auditory experience” or “the best music you’ll ever hear” or the “ultimate DAC”. All those can be opinion pieces since none of them are explicitly speaking about an objectively evaluateable standard. But when you talk about sonic performance. That’s directly a measurable claim.

That’s the relevant differentiation in this instance. It’s not nebulous, and we know exactly what they’re talking about when they make such a claim.

Ummmm, no. Its "shocking value" . A particularly English phrase so apologies for that but it means terrible value. I'm not defending the DCS, I'm just saying let's not accuse their marketing dept of "lying" for using the same hyperbole as every other marketing department in the entire world.

And I'm sorry, but you're splitting hairs trying to say "ultimate driving machine" and "unrivalled in sonic and technical performance" aren't the same level of bullshit.

Again, had they said "unrivalled SINAD" or any other hard metric, yes you would have a point. Something they and the regulators know all too well. And again, they could produce legion supporters to validate that, to them, it was.

 

[DACs_Lover]

If we measure DCS the whole stack, would it be better? I mean the whole megabuck system?

 

[Tks]

Ummmm, no. Its "shocking value" . A particularly English phrase so apologies for that but it means terrible value. I'm not defending the DCS, I'm just saying let's not accuse their marketing dept of "lying" for using the same hyperbole as every other marketing department in the entire world.

And I'm sorry, but you're splitting hairs trying to say "ultimate driving machine" and "unrivalled in sonic and technical performance" aren't the same level of bullshit.

Again, had they said "unrivalled SINAD" or any other hard metric, yes you would have a point. Something they and the regulators know all too well. And again, they could produce legion supporters to validate that, to them, it was.

I'm just confused now. I explained in my last post about how EVEN IF every single manufacturer is straight up lying, even by saying their devices will cure your cancer - that does nothing for dCS's situation about false advertising. Would you want this formally explained as to why because I'm not getting the feeling that you appreciate the concept I'm talking about.

As for "splitting hairs", it's not splitting any hairs, I took all four of your examples and explained why none of them necessarily reference an objectively verifiable claim, while dCS's claim does. It's not the same level of "bullshit" for reasons explained, but if you disagree with any of the four examples (that you yourself brought up as examples - not me) and the distinctions I drew for differentiation between those four and dCS's, you're welcome to say which, and why.

As for them having to say "unrivaled SINAD", that would be less of an affront, because they actually make the stronger claim where they say unrivaled technical performance. SINAD is only one aspect of technical evaluation of sonic aspects. So in reality, my point would be weaker than it currently is, because they say they're unrivaled in technical performance in general, meaning more than a single metric. Which is obviously false, they aren't unrivaled in multiple technical performance aspects - they're actually inferior on simple things like channel balance for example from a technical perspective.

But lets assume the most charitable interpretation of their claim, and they're referencing two technical performances they are unrivaled in (and not they they're technically unrivaled in them all or many). Which two aspects are they technically unrivaled in considering this is an advertisement for a DAC. Please lets not be childish and say "well uhh maybe it's technically unrivaled with how well it can crack a skull technically speaking HUR HUR you never know what they're talking about right??". If a DAC is being sold, it only makes sense the advertising is referencing technical and sonic performance of what/how a DAC functions as. And not the "technical sonic performance of the pleasing sound of someone's head being cracked open" or other stupidity people like to get smart with when getting in the weeds about false advertising claims..

 

[JJB70]

DACs are a commodity. I genuinely believe it is much harder to find a DAC, including onboard DACs in devices, that is audibly degraded than one that just works. The price of this item is frankly objectionable to me and I see it as an utterly pointless bit of audio jewelry for the status conscious. However, I am not the target audience and if people want to spend $$$$$$$$$$$$s in ways I consider stupid then that's their choice and it's hardly my place to tell anyone else what to buy.
However, I feel the same way about all those Topping, SMSL etc DACs that people wax lyrical about. Unless you need a particular feature only available on pricier items then I see no reason to spend much on a DAC if indeed anything. I think we have to be consistent, if it is about pure objective performance then do an ABX and decide whether there's any audible difference and buy accordingly. If it's a hobby which you like to indulge yourself in then what others think is irrelevant and if you want to spend $$$$$$$s on a nice box and a fancy name then it's no different to all of those drive expensive cars, wear expensive watches, buy designer clothes etc.
I have arrived at a point where I really think the gear doesn't matter and see no reason to spend much on audio gear, but that's just me

 

[Robin L]

I'm just confused now. I explained in my last post about how EVEN IF every single manufacturer is straight up lying, even by saying their devices will cure your cancer - that does nothing for dCS's situation about false advertising. Would you want this formally explained as to why because I'm not getting the feeling that you appreciate the concept I'm talking about.

As for "splitting hairs", it's not splitting any hairs, I took all four of your examples and explained why none of them necessarily reference an objectively verifiable claim, while dCS's claim does. It's not the same level of "bullshit" for reasons explained, but if you disagree with any of the four examples (that you yourself brought up as examples - not me) and the distinctions I drew for differentiation between those four and dCS's, you're welcome to say which, and why.

As for them having to say "unrivaled SINAD", that would be less of an affront, because they actually make the stronger claim where they say unrivaled technical performance. SINAD is only one aspect of technical evaluation of sonic aspects. So in reality, my point would be weaker than it currently is, because they say they're unrivaled in technical performance in general, meaning more than a single metric. Which is obviously false, they aren't unrivaled in multiple technical performance aspects - they're actually inferior on simple things like channel balance for example from a technical perspective.

But lets assume the most charitable interpretation of their claim, and they're referencing two technical performances they are unrivaled in (and not they they're technically unrivaled in them all or many). Which two aspects are they technically unrivaled in considering this is an advertisement for a DAC. Please lets not be childish and say "well uhh maybe it's technically unrivaled with how well it can crack a skull technically speaking HUR HUR you never know what they're talking about right??". If a DAC is being sold, it only makes sense the advertising is referencing technical and sonic performance of what/how a DAC functions as. And not the "technical sonic performance of the pleasing sound of someone's head being cracked open" or other stupidity people like to get smart with when getting in the weeds about false advertising claims..

I don't know how many folks memories go back as far as when dcs was a big deal as regards ADCs used at the professional level. They were the first [as I recall] to break through bit depth limits with 20 and 24 bit converters and were regarded as SOTA at the time they appeared. At a certain point, the sort of performance previously regarded as SOTA became more like the norm, and at lower cost. I don't know when dcs decided to move into high-end consumer electronics, but it seems like it's working on being a "legacy" brand, like McIntosh audio gear or Harleys. There was a time I lusted for their gear, but I'm glad I got something that performs at more or less the same technical level, costs 60 times less and neatly fits into a small corner space on my desk.

 

[Inner Space]

Interesting detour by @Tks and @Jimbob54 - I think the specific problem here is that actually, there was no marketing department involved. Everything about those slogans says "engineers moonlighting as copy writers". Style, construction, word choice, rhythm. Real marketers would have been way slicker and smarter.

Makes me wonder what the future is for dCS. I remember them as a solid studio brand, ran forever, never messed up. But that world has gone now. Increasingly the studio is a bedroom. Probably few of those bedroom guys are ASR members, and some of them are dumb as rocks, but even so, plausible budgets are way lower - the same way it is on the domestic side now. So I doubt if dCS is looking ahead with confidence.