He seems to be way too focused on "limitations’ in the playback handling experience that really aren’t limitations at all given the PWT was never advertised to support what he’s trying to do. Kind of like saying my 2 wheel drive car isn’t taking me up the side of a mountain that only an AWD could handle.
I was thinking the same thing lets stay tuned and see where it goes. I am hoping for a happy ending
tony22 said He seems to be way too focused on "limitations' in the playback handling experience that really aren't limitations at all given the PWT was never advertised to support what he's trying to do. Kind of like saying my 2 wheel drive car isn't taking me up the side of a mountain that only an AWD could handle.I don't think Mark understands the age of the design. When the PWT launched it was the most advanced player out there and, in many ways, it still is. He's right, of course, the Oppo handles more formats.
That may be true of the Oppo but it’s really apples and oranges. For some of those extra formats (like SACD) that the Oppo handles you can’t use an external DAC, which is the whole point of the PWT.
But remember all the people who have posted in this very Forum expressing considerable frustration the PWT does not easily play high-resolution files, cannot play DVD-A, DSD files, etc. That is, we have expressed exactly these frustrations ourselves.
As Paul points out, however, the PWT was bleeding edge when it was introduced but is now a bit long in the tooth. It remains an extremely fine player.
Yes, it’s true we have, Elk. But I think the frustration went hand in hand with already knowing that the PWT wasn’t able to do those things to begin with. If Mark feels it needs to be expressed I think it should have been done by also making it clear he’s trying to do something the transport was never intended to do.
I think his PWT-irritation escalated when realizing that the PSA gear in transit would not arrive in due time for his visit.
stevem2 said Did you guys plays any DSD tracks? That seems to be where Dr. Aix tends to go off the deep end. (Although he also criticizes the DS approach of converting everything to DSD so maybe it doesn't matter so much here.)Yes, all the tracks of our own album were DSD directly off the Sonoma recorder. His only comment was there appeared to be too much fake reverb on the signer's voice, which I agreed with.
tony22 said If Mark feels it needs to be expressed I think it should have been done by also making it clear he's trying to do something the transport was never intended to do.But he does, and opines he disagrees with the design decisions as well as extensively quoting PS Audio's marketing. I doubt any reader would be confused.
Paul McGowan said Yes, all the tracks of our own album were DSD directly off the Sonoma recorder. His only comment was there appeared to be too much fake reverb on the signer's voice, which I agreed with.What is the signal path for the recordings? Mic pres to mixing board (with outboard reverb processor) to DSD ADCs to Sonoma? Are you doing any editing on the Sonoma workstation? What ADCs? EMM Labs, Mytek? Are you using the hyper cool ST glass from EMM Labs to Sonoma?
Curious minds and all. 
Great questions Elk and I do not know many of the answers but will be posting full disclosure when we release. I am gathering all that information from the studio guys on each track. I do know they use the world’s only 24 track Sonoma system to make their recordings.
Fun!
I think that if I were in Mr. Waldrep’s shoes, being focused on the media end of things, that I would be a bit disappointed on encountering the PWT with all my various files in hand and being unable to listen to them. I get his frustration. Let’s see what he says next.
A Visit To PS Audio: Part III
Dr. AIX
Paul McGowan and I sat in his newish demonstration room last Wednesday and listened to a variety of high-resolution source material. I admit I was anxious to hear some of my favorite 96 kHz/24-bit PCM stereo files through his elaborate, high-end system. The DVD-R that I burned in his office contained about 20 tracks from my catalog. All were WAV files and were easily found by the PerfectWave Transport and output using to the DirectStream DAC via I2S through the HDMI output.
I must admit that I’m not up to speed on the I2S method of digitally connecting a source player and a DAC. In my studio, the high-resolution PCM digital signals are moved between my DAW and console and converters using MADI (the multichannel audio digital interface or AES 10 standard protocol). I have both physical and digital patch bays to route things among all of my devices…it’s very flexible AND sounds great (just ask the gentlemen that participated in yesterday’s listening session). I also use the S/P DIF and AES-EBU standards as well.
Using MADI, S/P DIF and AES-EBU certainly haven’t resulted in any sonic compromises, degradation, or compromised sound in my studio. Professional audio engineers and equipment designers make sure that the digital packets arrive in tact successfully at each stage of our production processes. The claims of “superior audio quality” and statements that using the established digital connection methods causes digital audio to “sound flat and harsh” are merely “audiophile marketing speak” and without substantiation. It all goes back to getting the digital bits from one place to another…that’s all there is to it…and MADI and the other existing standards do that with 100% accuracy. There cannot and is not a change in sound if you get the bits from one place to another without errors.
The AIX WAV data was then routed to the PS Audio DirectStream DAC on its way to the tube amplifiers and speakers. I’ve criticized the “my way (DSD) or the highway” approach of PS Audio in the their new DirectStream DAC in previous posts. It’s perfectly OK with me if someone wants to buy into the myth of DSD but what if you like the way things sound without the additional 10x up sampling and conversion to 2X DSD? Mandating that every incoming digital signal…DSD or PCM…run through upsampling and format conversion is way too restrictive IMHO and alienates those of us that like our music playback uncolored and representative of its original fidelity.
As I sat and listened to my AIX tracks through Paul’s system, I can say that I was very pleased with the sound. I was impressed and told Paul that things sounded great. However, the spatial imaging was somewhat narrow for my tastes…at least compared to the sound in my room, which has the left and right speakers much further apart. Instruments and voices are just less spatially vague using my B&Ws. But to their credit, the Infinity IRS V speakers sonically disappeared. These very large cabinets just weren’t there anymore. The music appeared to come from well behind the physical location of these beasts.
If I were pressed to describe the sound of my pristine 96 kHz/24-bit recordings, I wouldn’t say that they sounded more “analog” or were “warmer” than I’ve heard them in various systems. The sound was wonderfully present, well balanced from the deepest bass to the highest highs. But whatever the 10X up conversion and DSD 5.6 conversion does to the sound, it didn’t eclipse the sound that I get in my B&W 801 Matrix III, Bryston powered studio when I play my tracks through my Benchmark DAC2 HGC or even the multichannel DACs positioned on the backside of my console (using Crystal Semiconductor chips and made by Euphonix).
The exquisite shimmer of cymbals, the extreme clarity of percussion…especially metal percussion…(think the wind chimes in Laurence Juber’s award-winning “Mosaic” track, which you can get free by following the banner ad on the right) and the smoothness of the overall blend that I get in my studio was marginally lacking in Paul’s room. I can’t really complain about anything I heard but I can say that it wasn’t better in any aspect than what I’m used to. And the gear in his room costs a lot more than I spent.
We didn’t get a chance to listen to everything that I brought along…Paul’s time was pressed and I knew it. We finished off the session listening to a preview of some of the tracks planned for the collaborative high-resolution release from Gus Skinas, Immersive Studios and PS Audio.
I’ll share my thoughts on what I heard in tomorrow’s post
Time to change the channel . Enough of this guys bull. It’s one thing to like or dislike someones system. But what he does like as an example is well beneath pauls setup. He just is convinced his stuff is better period and his lack of knowing what most would consider is better is his fundamental flaw. Paul in running my comPanies I ahave to deal with some people I just do not like . But there money is good and so we continue. How in anyway do you need such a person in your world. Just the fact he feels DSd is not important would be enough for me to write him off period. Wow is he on face book I hope so.
Al.
I disagree.
He approached listening with an open mind, found a great deal with which he was extremely impressed, but still prefers his own excellent equipment he set up to his preferences.
Nothing unreasonable here.
I find more troubling your comment “his lack of knowing what most would consider is better is his fundamental flaw.” This is unfairly dismissive of an informed, experienced listener.
Elk have your heard the dac he considered as better in his system ? When someone who I would expect to know more , posts his opinion about audio devices and some of the devices that person is using is known to me being inferior that’s what I say. And what of his DSd commnet does this mean anything here either. As I am not of all knowing in this and certanltly I am not claiming the DS is the best dac made either. But given pauls system alone this would merit the system as a whole better than his. But of course to each there own , but not if invited to pauls room it’s just a low ball move . Or atleast it’s how I see it. But it is as it is I guess.
Al
I’m not sure whether to grin or cringe. I remember my impression upon first hearing the DS DAC in that room and how remarkably better it was than the PWD. I did not know what I was listening to when I heard it or how much it cost at the time. Not sure that it even had a name yet. We’re just not going to get anywhere here and in the end, it does not matter. I guess I’ll have to admit that the analog output of my MacBook sounds just as good as the DS DAC. All the bits are there, etc…
I’m a little surprised by the reaction to AIX’s comments. He didn’t say it sounded bad he just stated preference for his system. He’s open minded enough to listen, say it sounds great but you expect him to ditch his preferences (and system) based on what WE like? That’s asking alot. His equipment is fine and so is ours. To expect someone to come over to “our side” is asking too much of anyone who has their own preferences. This is the problem with audiophilia in my opinion - there should be room for a range of opinions.
In my opinion the problem isn’t with his sonic judgment. He’s free to like the sound of his own system better and there is nothing wrong with that. What troubles me is his absolute assertions that I2S can’t sound better because all bit-perfect connections are the same and also his out-of-hand condemnation of the DS’s approach to handling PCM. My limited understanding is that there are very few true ladder DACs in use today and most off-the-shelf DAC chips convert PCM into something that looks like DSD (or multi-bit DSD, what ever that means). How many DACs are there that combine a true ladder DAC for PCM with a true separate DSD chip? Is he also opposed to PCM chips that upsample redbook? What criteria would a DAC have to meet in order not to " alienate those of us that like our music playback uncolored and representative of its original fidelity." Would he be able to distinguish those DACs from the DS by listening, or is it just he can’t stand the very idea of converting PCM to DSD? I suspect it’s the latter.
Don’t forget, also, that he’s tailoring the recording to sound optimal on his DAC. So, sure, anything different will be, well, ‘different’ and not sound as ‘good’ to him, even if it is better for whatever reason. But he may have tweaked some parameters during the recording process that take into account and make up for the limitations of his DAC. So he may be stuck in time, technology-wise.
Also, aren’t all modern DAC chips using DSD in them? I know the Sabre does, and I thought the Wolfson does, as well. When I looked up the ‘Cryistal’ chip there was one that came out in 1999 or so and I couldn’t find anything newer.
I’m just postulating.
–SSW