Review and Measurements of the PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell DAC

[digititus]

I think this point needs to be highlighted. Their published specifications are reasonably met, so there is little or no deception or false advertising.

Problem is that published specifications are then distorted into something quite patently false by the marketing department. This is then published with the full knowledge of the CEO of PS Audio, so I have to disagree with you on this one.

 

[yummy]

the head's off!

 

[solderdude]

Uh-oh.

This clearly differs from 'uh huh' but is equally well defining.

 

[solderdude]

Well ... the performance is still somewhat better than that of vinyl (close to it) so there will still be lots of people subjectively liking this stellar 'analog audio emulator' ?

 

[vkvedam]

Another feather in PS Audio's cap , thanks for the review @amirm

 

[KSTR]

I may repeat: Gilbert/Blackmer-Cell VCAs are found in the audio chain at several places, the most prominent ones being mixing desks, (mastering) limiters/compressors, and protection circuits in many active studio monitors. Nobody freaks out about their "horrid" distortion profile there, so why should one in this case?
While I like the measurement-centric approach of ASR I'm getting more and more unhappy with the comments and interpretations of those measurements with all their "we-are-oh-so-politically-correct" attitude, anything that doesn't measure stellar and does cost a bit being considered a "rip-off" and "epic engineering failure" (notably those who are not competent electronic design engineers themselves should be careful with their wordings) . That is not to say that sometimes there are devices that really are failures and should be called such, justly.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

While I like the measurement-centric approach of ASR I'm getting more and more unhappy with the comments and interpretations of those measurements with all their "we-are-oh-so-politically-correct" attitude, anything that doesn't measure stellar and does cost a bit being considered a "rip-off" and "epic engineering failure"

Indeed, I've mentioned this before too.
The glee with which some people celebrate poor measurements borders on the irrational and even comes across as being….. unscientific

 

[digititus]

While I like the measurement-centric approach of ASR I'm getting more and more unhappy with the comments and interpretations of those measurements with all their "we-are-oh-so-politically-correct" attitude, anything that doesn't measure stellar and does cost a bit being considered a "rip-off" and "epic engineering failure" (notably those who are not competent electronic design engineers themselves should be careful with their wordings) . That is not to say that sometimes there are devices that really are failures and should be called such, justly.

Well, that's the point isn't it. A lot of these products are "epic-engineering failures" according to the measured criteria used here. They are being judged on measured performance data and not marketing waffle. When a company like ESS states the potential performance of it's DAC chip and the implementer fails to get anywhere near this stated data point, what else should it be called? We are all free to draw our own conclusions based upon these results.

 

[simbloke]

Well I don't know about everybody else but what I have is not glee, it's dismay.

When high end companies tell us of their state of the art products, novel circuits, and engineering prowess should I believe even a single word?

 

[solderdude]

Well, that's the point isn't it. A lot of these products are "epic-engineering failures" according to the measured criteria used here. They are being judged on measured performance data and not marketing waffle. When a company like ESS states the potential performance of it's DAC chip and the implementer fails to get anywhere near this stated data point, what else should it be called? We are all free to draw our own conclusions based upon these results.

I don't know how exactly smart they are at PS Audio (never spoke with those guys and picked their brains) but it could well be that they deliberately applied the 'extra distortion' products and or noise levels and skirting to get the performance of the used DAC chip (proof its not the DAC chip that matters but the implementation as well as parts around it) closer to 'their ideal' and their preference and thereby doing a favor to those who like the sound. Afterall... most people I visit that have invested in a stereo system all have quite different sound signatures (for obvious reasons) and generally like the sound they have.

This doesn't necessarily mean all gear they use is measuring poorly or have technical excellence at all.
Starting from measuring excellence or what one prefers are both means to an end... able to enjoy music.

 

[digicidal]

They do say their products are ' state of the art' exactly that was said in the video put up here in one of the other PS audio product threads.

You've missed the critical word in that phrase again... "ART" - @restorer-john touched on this... allow me to elaborate visually:

Let's call this comparison Matrix Audio's interpretation of art vs. PS Audio's interpretation:

vs .

It's pretty clear which has more transparency in regards to the model... but SPOILER ALERT: the one on the right is priceless and the one on the left can be "rented" by the hour (the artist not the painting).

Audio is just one of many markets in which cost is definitely NOT a primary indicator of accuracy.

Indeed, I've mentioned this before too.
The glee with which some people celebrate poor measurements borders on the irrational and even comes across as being….. unscientific

Agreed, but completely human and typical. People don't stop and stare (or take pictures) of a train that safely arrived at it's destination. At least not many do... but when one derails... you'll have people leave work early to gawk at the carnage... in huge numbers. And when was the last time you read a news article about the politician that delivered on their promises and was beyond reproach in their personal life as well? Not that I actually believe there are any... but even if there was, it wouldn't be news.

More to the point... there is a lot of activity and accolades to be thrown around (as well as new sales) when the latest champion product blows the doors off the competition on ASR too. So it's not just the beauty of tragedy at play here.

Well I don't know about everybody else but what I have is not glee, it's dismay.
When high end companies tell us of their state of the art products, novel circuits, and engineering prowess should I believe even a single word?

Right there with ya.

 

[digititus]

I don't know how exactly smart they are at PS Audio (never spoke with those guys and picked their brains) but it could well be that they deliberately applied the 'extra distortion' products and or noise levels and skirting to get the performance of the used DAC chip (proof its not the DAC chip that matters but the implementation as well as parts around it) closer to 'their ideal' and their preference and thereby doing a favor to those who like the sound. Afterall... most people I visit that have invested in a stereo system all have quite different sound signatures (for obvious reasons) and generally like the sound they have.

This doesn't necessarily mean all gear they use is measuring poorly or have technical excellence at all.
Starting from measuring excellence or what one prefers are both means to an end... able to enjoy music.

If PS Audio stated design is to obtain these measured results, then that is fair enough. I have no problem with that. However, my feeling from reading the comments on PS Audio forum from their designer leaves me with a somewhat different impression, as does the marketing fluff that accompanies the product.

 

[Krunok]

We had a discussion on this already: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/distortion-listening-test.8152/

It is not clear what they are measuring as far as distortion.

In general, you cannot make statements like that about audibility of distortion regarding THD. The spectrum of noise and distortion matters a lot as does content, one's critical listening ability, etc.

I can tell you that 0.2% is quite high and can be readily audible. See this double blind test I recently ran: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ible-difference-between-dacs.9207/post-237713

The distortion and noise there was 0.016% and quite audible on weak signals.

Weak sine signals.. Not really what most of us prefer to listen, right? How about you doing a proper listening test with real music?

 

[digititus]

You've missed the critical word in that phrase again... "ART" - @restorer-john touched on this... allow me to elaborate visually:

Let's call this comparison Matrix Audio's interpretation of art vs. PS Audio's interpretation:
View attachment 35282 vs .View attachment 35285

LOL. TIL Ted Smith is the Picasso of DAC design.

 

[digicidal]

LOL. TIL Ted Smith is the Picasso of DAC design.

Well he definitely seems to have an impressionist style in regards to audio I'd say.

 

[Fidji]

You've missed the critical word in that phrase again... "ART" - @restorer-john touched on this... allow me to elaborate visually:

Let's call this comparison Matrix Audio's interpretation of art vs. PS Audio's interpretation:
View attachment 35282 vs .View attachment 35285

It's pretty clear which has more transparency in regards to the model... bu

Very nice, and as usually, not really correct analogy.
If we should stay within realm of visual arts, this one is much more appropriate, I believe.

In reproduced music, ART ends, once the recording is deemed ready. And there we can have discussions.

Rest is engineering, which is either done right or wrong.

 

[solderdude]

Are we allowed to season a dish that has been served to suit our taste?
Even when it is prepared by a masterchef ?

Engineering can be done with excellence right down to an abomination... with everything in between.
Good engineering is usually a compromise but it can also be a mistake or based on 'audio religion'.
At some point(s) audibility levels are reached. These may differ from person to person.

 

[digicidal]

Very nice, and as usually, not really correct analogy.
If we should stay within realm of visual arts, this one is much more appropriate, I believe.

In reproduced music, ART ends, once the recording is deemed ready. And there we can have discussions.

Rest is engineering, which is either done right or wrong.

I agree completely... which is why I stated "in regards to the model" - the woman in the chair representing the finished recording. Both are just reproductions of a woman... but one is more transparent. But regardless, your examples work just fine as well.

I might argue that there are cases where over-engineering can move something from the "right" category into the "wrong" category as well... but that's irrelevant to this discussion I suppose.

 

[graz_lag]

It looks his long hair on his hears successfully act as a filter on all the noise, jitter and unwanted spurious tones this DAC produces ...

"... would just let the Stellar Gain Cell DAC do all the magic. And magic it did! ..."
"... Again, this is magic at work here. This goes beyond specifications that I can quote to you, or things that you can measure in a lab, it’s about the presentation of music in the way the engineer imagined it, and perhaps beyond ..."
"... The Stellar Gain Cell DAC has certainly forever changed my viewpoint on what a good DAC can do, and I encourage you to audition this for yourself ..."

Source: http://theshoestringaudiophile.com

 

[digicidal]

I'm not sure that ~$3K worth of DAC+Amp counts as "shoestring" but who am I to judge? (All I know is my shoestrings didn't cost that much)

I think the way the market operates now (in many areas, not just audio) virtually guarantees that no subjective reviews can be trusted.