Review and Measurements of the PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell DAC

[AudioSceptic]

That's about how I felt reading this review. I continue to be shocked and surprised by these types of results. It makes me wonder what is going on inside these companies. Con men? Or just incompetent at designing and making these expensive products?

The only explanation I can come up with is that they genuinely believe that they are making a good product. They live in a bubble where listening is everything and measurements are irrelevant. This bubble is maintained by subjective reviewers and enough buyers who believe the reviewers and fund the whole delusional enterprise.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Rather obvious if you ask me:

View attachment 35257

View attachment 35256

Their published THD is terrible, I agree, and 20 times worse than the first CD players in 1983 and 100 times worse than some D/A converters you test. But the facts are, they are not misrepresenting the performance in what little specifications they provide. They are clearly "voicing" the product to be the way it is.

Their blurb is creative to say the least. State of the art is, by its very nature, a constantly moving target and I don't think you could tie that down as misrepresentation. It's typical of the gushing copy written by audio companies since day one. Specifications are what count to me, and testing against them.

Do I want to buy their gear? No chance. I don't buy hype, stories or the words of "Gurus". But I think it's important to be a voice of reason as I watch an angry mob of group-think torch bearers, drag down yet another "review" thread.

View attachment 35260

Drag down? What would a reasonable response be, and who's angry?

 

[digicidal]

The only explanation I can come up with is that they genuinely believe that they are making a good product. They live in a bubble where listening is everything and measurements are irrelevant. This bubble is maintained by subjective reviewers and enough buyers who believe the reviewers and fund the whole delusional enterprise.

This. In addition to "crafting a house sound" - I feel like they are also doing much of their "listening judgements" based solely on their own products. So instead of "This DAC measures better than the competition - ship it!" it's more likely along these lines:

Management: "We just listened to that mid-level product we had you design on that cheap ESS chip... it sounds better than our flagship DAC!"
Engineer: "So should we tell Ted we need to sit down and redesign that one?"
Management: "What?!? Of course not, just up the distortion in this one. See what you can do about adding some features that sell well - people in this bracket might like more analog inputs for example. Whatever you do just make sure the 3rd harmonic is the highest... that's our thing"
Engineer: "You got it boss... so Sprout levels?"
Management: "Do I have to tell you everything? Reverse the Sprout, we have that already. In this one make the analog perform better than the digital, just not by too much."
Engineer: "But the analog section is pretty bad actually... we'd have to hobble that DAC chip entirely."
Management: "See, I knew you could figure it out! Now get to work... we need to move to production by Thursday... there's a show coming up!"

 

[Krunok]

Drag down? What would a reasonable response be, and who's angry?

Yes, drag down. Everything that needs to be said has been said, measured and compared to specs - more than once. And you folks are still dragging this thread as your goal is to reach 50 pages or the world will end.

 

[VintageFlanker]

But the facts are, they are not misrepresenting the performance in what little specifications they provide. They are clearly "voicing" the product to be the way it is.

Sure. At least, their specs are on par with measured performance... But they also say this:

In that case, the "zero-loss" and "pure" claim is nothing but a lie.

Anyway, the typical PS Audio customer doesn't have a clue what these specs mean.

 

[solderdude]

In that case, the "zero-loss" claim is nothing but a lie.

Maybe there is zero-loss just addition of distortion products, noise and other additions masking that which is not lost

 

[Krunok]

Sure. At least, their specs are on par with measured performance... But they also say this:

In that case, the "zero-loss" and "pure" claim is nothing but a lie.

Anyway, the typical PS Audio customer doesn't have a clue what these specs mean.

Such marketing BS can be found on pages of pretty much every HiFi manufacturer on Earth.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Ah, no. This is the page you get to when you search for it:
View attachment 35274

See the SPEC tab is missing? Only when you click on more info does it then give you the page you posted.

Even when you get there, percent numbers for distortion just don't register with people. Who remembers if good spec is 0.02% or 0.002% or 0.0002%. There is a reason people are shocked by my reviewed even though some of the similar data is on the website. The one or two mentions for distortion are just not seen or understood by people.

That's the problem, isn't it? I'm reasonably numerate but have a job comparing percentages once you get more that 2-3 leading zeroes. It would be so much easier if dB were used instead.

 

[digicidal]

Such marketing BS can be found on pages of pretty much every HiFi manufacturer on Earth.

And repeated or even expanded upon in the pages of nearly every "review" (except here obviously).

 

[AudioSceptic]

Need this chart to make it clear:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-thd.htm

Yes. Why are % still used when dB are much more useful in relation to perception?

 

[gikigill]

Such marketing BS can be found on pages of pretty much every HiFi manufacturer on Earth.

And that makes it acceptable?

When I pay for 16/44, I want my full goddamn 16 bits. Others might settle for a compromise and good on them.

Only in audio it seems people will pay more for less but heaven forbid their Mcdonalds fries might be short by a single fry.

If a restaurant advertises 12 oysters for $50, I want my full 12 oysters even though I,m allergic to them

 

[TimmyS]

I wonder how their speakers will turn out, they went from the cool looking Arnie Nudell prototype to having a BG Neo tweeter in front of their BG Neo midrange and call it a coxial planar; I can’t for the life of me believe their claim that it won’t hinder performance; I need me some measurements.

I also wonder how their upcoming >$10,000 Obsidian DAC will perform, with it’s separate boxes for digital and analog components.

I am wondering myself why they would put the tweeter in front of the midrange and not to the side?

 

[Soniclife]

My understanding of the term in relation to HiFi, is that it can be used, requires no corroboration or proof and really doesn't mean anything in real terms as the state of the art is constantly evolving. It's a grossly overused marketing term.

Wikipedia agrees with you.

The term has been used since 1910, and has become both a common term in advertising and marketing, and a legally significant phrase with respect to both patent law and tort liability.

In advertising, the phrase is often used to convey that a product is made with the best or latest available technology, but it has been noted that "the term 'state-of-the-art' requires little proof on the part of advertisers", as it is considered mere puffery.[1] The use of the term in patent law, by contrast, "does not connote even superiority, let alone the superlative quality the ad writers would have us ascribe to the term".[2]

If I ran the world all these terms that have been devalued to mean nothing would be banned in advertising.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Such marketing BS can be found on pages of pretty much every HiFi manufacturer on Earth.

True thing.Yet, the only difference is: many are lying and others aren't.

 

[Killingbeans]

But the facts are, they are not misrepresenting the performance in what little specifications they provide. They are clearly "voicing" the product to be the way it is.

That's why I can't help seeing these products as nothing more than a glorified and ridiculously overpriced from of circuit bending. It seems like a colossal waste of development resources when the same result could be had by deliberately messing up the circuit in any dirt cheap DAC.

State of the art is, by its very nature, a constantly moving target and I don't think you could tie that down as misrepresentation.

I have to respectfully disagree with that. State-of-the-art is (IMO) when combined effort of the world's scientific community uses the latest and best of knowledge and expertise to push the bar to new hights... Or at least so it should be. "Voicing" a product fits nowhere in that definition. It might drown completely in the overall marketing BS, but it's still false advertising, if you ask me.

EDIT: I know it's naive of me... It's just a meaningless marketing blurb. But still...

But I think it's important to be a voice of reason as I watch an angry mob of group-think torch bearers, drag down yet another "review" thread.

A little harsh, but I do somewhat agree. I'm all for exposure, but ridicule has never really made anybody change their ways.

 

[SIY]

IF (and a big IF) the sound is actually audibly colored, then what you have is a processing effect that can't be turned off or adjusted. So irrespective of whether a user likes the effect, I can't imagine that it would be liked on every recording...

 

[Krunok]

True thing.Yet, the only difference is: many are lying and others aren't.

Marketing BS is targeted at non-tecnical folks and as such is pretty much always misleading. As @restorer-john pointed out their published specs are according to the measurements, so who wants to shell out that kind of money for such device, well, whatever rocks someone's boat is fine by me. What I don't like is this thread becoming as one religious cult attacking the other as there can be only one God and only one religion. I don't think that kind of behaviour is justified..

 

[digicidal]

IF (and a big IF) the sound is actually audibly colored, then what you have is a processing effect that can't be turned off or adjusted. So irrespective of whether a user likes the effect, I can't imagine that it would be liked on every recording...

I thought the common response to that was always: "This (insert product here) is so amazingly (insert term here) that poorly mastered recordings might actually sound worse... but great ones will sound even better!" So it's the sound engineer's fault if it sounds bad to you.

 

[SIY]

I thought the common response to that was always: "This (insert product here) is so amazingly transparent that poorly mastered recordings might actually sound worse... but great ones will sound even better!

I've seen that, and the logic escapes me completely. Not that I expect logic...

 

[digicidal]

I edited for more broad application... as many don't even go near the word "transparent" for good reason.