Review and Measurements of PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC

[AudioSceptic]

Not my experience.



I've found this to be case.
Currently I have Benchmark DAC3(ESS 9028), Topping D70(AKM 4497) and Topping D50(ESS 9038).
Heard through either my Focal Utopia headphones or ATC SCM100 speakers the Benchmark has a subjective clarity and transparent presence lacking in either of the Topping dacs (disclaimer: I have no 'proof' of this only my subjective opinion - objectivists can ignore).
The DAC3 sounds amazing through the HPA4/SCM100 combo.
I suspect there is something yet to be measured or accounted for.

Surely after all this time this "something" would've been discovered by now, either in academic research or by a manufacturer looking for a genuine USP?

 

[tobes]

Surely after all this time this "something" would've been discovered by now, either in academic research or by a manufacturer looking for a genuine USP?

You'd think so.
I was prepared for an upset because the D70 appears to match (even exceed in some cases) the DAC3 in measurement. The AKM dac chip appears broadly respected while ESS is frowned on in some quarters. However the upset didn't happen.
Some will say I was predisposed towards the more expensive Benchmark - but I've axed more expensive dacs I've owned in similar shootouts.
FWIW the DAC3 also sounded slightly more transparent to me than the excellent measuring Chord Qutest in my system. The Qutest appears to be a current darling of both subjectivists and objectivists alike (maybe the balanced vs unbalanced effected that shootout?).

 

[beefkabob]

You'd think so.
I was prepared for an upset because the D70 appears to match (even exceed in some cases) the DAC3 in measurement. The AKM dac chip appears broadly respected while ESS is frowned on in some quarters. However the upset didn't happen.
Some will say I was predisposed towards the more expensive Benchmark - but I've axed more expensive dacs I've owned in similar shootouts.
FWIW the DAC3 also sounded slightly more transparent to me than the excellent measuring Chord Qutest in my system. The Qutest appears to be a current darling of both subjectivists and objectivists alike (maybe the balanced vs unbalanced effected that shootout?).

Blind tests, right?

 

[tobes]

Blind tests, right?

Nope. So I guess it doesn't count.

 

[Sal1950]

Nope. So I guess it doesn't count.

You got it.

 

[beefkabob]

Nope. So I guess it doesn't count.

Only if you want to know if they actually sound different. Level-matched, too.

It was quite liberating to realize my own biases and inability to escape them. It meant no rabbit hole of upgrades to chase. I could use the measurements (not just SINAD) and be content with my choices. Ironically, I haven't a clue what the SINAD of my main DACs and amps are, because short of disassembling the speakers, they're not measurable.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Has anyone ever thought about having blind people participate in blind audio testing?

This isn't one of my usual lame jokes... it's more a recognition that when one loses their sight, it is said that other senses become sharper to compensate.

 

[amirm]

Has anyone ever thought about having blind people participate in blind audio testing?

This isn't one of my usual lame jokes... it's more a recognition that when one loses their sight, it is said that other senses become sharper to compensate.

Proper testing calls for the listener be in charge of volume, what they listen to, etc. Blinding them literally would take that option away from them, and with it, reduce the chances they can find small differences.

 

[GrimSurfer]

A blind person can still operate volume controls, ABX switches, change musical selections etc. In fact, they would do so by touch instead of looking down (changing the orientation of their ears) like a sighted person would.

I raise this not so much because of the "blind thing" but because they're likely to have more developed and finely tuned listening skills than the general population. Indeed, training a blind person to pick up acoustic under/overtones could be quite powerful if their auditory acuity and memory is better than the sighted population.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-86942011000400015

From that study:

"... early on blind people learn to focus their attention on ambient auditory stimuli, which may explain their excellent performance in non-verbal tests in the present study."

 

[Krunok]

Has anyone ever thought about having blind people participate in blind audio testing?

This isn't one of my usual lame jokes... it's more a recognition that when one loses their sight, it is said that other senses become sharper to compensate.

That would raise the question if things that would be audible to them would be audible to us. I mean, with some effort probably a cat can be trained to conduct a blind test, but how would you interpret the results?

 

[GrimSurfer]

That would raise the question if things that would be audible to them would be audible to us. I mean, with some effort probably a cat can be trained to conduct a blind test, but how would you interpret the results?

Except we're not talking about separate species. We're talking about exploiting a pre-existing level of hearing acuity to support R&D. The aim is to reach the point of resolution quickly for a customer base that will, over many hours of enjoyment (or during an audition for the really good listeners) be satisfied with a performance.

Conversely, reviewers could use listening tests from unsighted viewers to reach conclusions very quickly. Things that might not become apparent for days or weeks could, potentially, be identified in minutes or hours.

I'm not saying any of this would work. I'm saying that it should be explored as an alternative to the semi-controlled anarchy (this is a bit harsh but one must accept the limitations of the current regime) of blind testing.

 

[ahofer]

The blind people I know tend to resent the idea that they have any particular compensating superpowers (I know that’s not exactly what you said, but bear with me). It is more a case of paying more attention to the other senses out of necessity. They don’t have better hearing. They listen better.

I spent ten years of my life on the board (6 as chairman) of an organization that served the visually-impaired, so when I say “blind people I know”, that means over a hundred.

Incidentally, if you’d like to do something easy for the visually impaired, go over to YouTube and watch a video on how to be a sighted guide. Takes about ten minutes. You’ll never feel clueless again when you see a blind person navigating city streets or a transportation system.

 

[Krunok]

Except we're not talking about separate species. We're talking about exploiting a pre-existing level of hearing acuity to support R&D. The aim is to reach the point of resolution quickly for a customer base that will, over many hours of enjoyment (or during an audition for the really good listeners) be satisfied with a performance.

Conversely, reviewers could use listening tests from unsighted viewers to reach conclusions very quickly. Things that might not become apparent for days or weeks could, potentially, be identified in minutes or hours.

I'm not saying any of this would work. I'm saying that it should be explored as an alternative to the semi-controlled anarchy (this is a bit harsh but one must accept the limitations of the current regime) of blind testing.

Sorry M8, that idea of yours seems very "off" to me. I don't think you would think of it if you have ever discussed this topic with a blind person.

 

[direstraitsfan98]

Only if you crank horns to 120dB+ (which you won't) and you have less than 30dB of noise in your room (which you don't).

I sometimes to 114-115db peaks! But my noise floor can only get to about 45-50db late at night.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Sorry M8, that idea of yours seems very "off" to me. I don't think you would think of it if you have ever discussed this topic with a blind person.

What seems "off" about it?

 

[GrimSurfer]

The blind people I know tend to resent the idea that they have any particular compensating superpowers (I know that’s not exactly what you said, but bear with me). It is more a case of paying more attention to the other senses out of necessity. They don’t have better hearing. They listen better.

I'm glad you didn't think I was talking about super powers, since the real issue is a human adaptive response that can be ethically exploited... much in the same way we ethically exploit peoples' abilities in other fields to support scientific advancement.

Highly developed listening skills seem like an advantage that could be applied to ABX testing. Much easier, I suspect, then trying to teach and develop concentration skills.

I'm not saying it should be done. I'm saying it should be explored a bit further because of the potential it might have to further enhance blind testing. (Resolution being a good thing, after all.)

 

[murraycamp]

Incidentally, if you’d like to do something easy for the visually impaired, go over to YouTube and watch a video on how to be a sighted guide. Takes about ten minutes. You’ll never feel clueless again when you see a blind person navigating city streets or a transportation system.

OT I know, but thanks for this. Just viewed youtube.com/watch?v=gAaWm6-4dro . I feel prepared to offer assistance now and will be aware of opportunities to do so.

 

[amirm]

OT I know, but thanks for this. Just viewed youtube.com/watch?v=gAaWm6-4dro . I feel prepared to offer assistance now and will be aware of opportunities to do so.

Wow, what a great video:

Thanks @ahofer.

 

[March Audio]

You are repeating same old song... Same goes for SINAD figures and all the rest, you need to correlate your claims of audibility to actual evidence regarding the measurement results here too. Those ranking graphs make absolutely no sense if you cannot hear the difference?

I'm seeing exactly what I'm expecting here. Denial.

There is no denial, and people are very interested in the correlation between measurements and audibility.

Absolutely no one has said thd or SINAD on its own are the answer to everything.

One point you have completely missed is this;

The measurements that are presented here are generally of things going on within the audible band. Whilst this in itself may not show a direct correlation to audibility, it does demonstrate a competence of engineering within the audible band.

So you can talk about things that happen outside of the audible band (which was your previous focus) as much as you like, but the simple fact is that things going on in the audible band are of far more importance.

So unless you can demonstrate that these out of band effects are causing in band issues, and of what magnitude/significance they are, then people simply won't pay any attention.

That's not denial, that's waiting for you to produce some evidence.

The TIM stuff is interesting, nothing new though.

Can you explain your TIM test and how it relates to static IM results?

 

[March Audio]

Uhh no, if I say something about even one thing, and the welcome is such... No, no way. It feels like going to extremist church to discuss different religions objectively.

This site is the antithesis of the dogma found in typical Audiophile forums.

If you have a cogent argument and evidence about what you say then you should be able to present it and the information will stand up by itself.