And what percentage of recordings are “unlistenable because their recording quality is not A+?”
2 Likes
.001%
1 Like
This is such a perverse thread I’m at a loss to come up with an analogy to understand it, but it is everything bad about audiophilia.
The best I could do would be a shortsighted man who likes to go to the art gallery and look at paintings by Mark Rothko and Piet Mondrian. They look much the same, squares in different arrangements with fuzzy borders.
He then goes and gets laser correction and returns to the gallery. To his amazement, the Mondrian squares turn out to be sharply delineated with lines he’d never been able to see before, but the Rothko pictures still had fuzzy borders. He declares with his new powers of vision that the Rothko paintings are so badly done compared to the Mondrian that he cannot bear to look at them.
Should he go to the pharmacy and buy a pair of glasses to downgrade his eyesight? Of course that would be pointless as he has entered the Garden of Eden of corrected vision.
Of course what he should do is see beyond the surface and what Rothko was trying to say, rather than the delinearisation of his brushstrokes. I regret that, just like @dancingsea now voraciously collects DSD recordings, the hero of my story will only look for the pictures with straight lines. There is some upside in that he will get to see Bridget Riley, Kandinsky and several other Soviet Realists, dismissing geniuses like Frank Auerbach and Anselm Kiefer, but I doubt he will ever see beyond the lines.
1 Like
I agree, speakers are part of the equation. But this issue of mediocre recordings sounding yet worse on a resolving audiophile (DAC) system is a well documented dynamic. I’m looking for clever ways around it.
Thanks for the tip. I have had my eye on the ZROCK for quite awhile. My rationale has been, for about the same money, I could get a Schiit Freya+ tube preamp, which is balanced, and has 4 tubes vs one tiny tube. I have no personal experience of either, and can find no review comparing the two, so I’m basically just making assumptions about what might fix the mediocre recording issue. But I really do appreciate your endorsement of the ZRock! I’ll revisit it.
On the theoretical level, I find this to be a failing of the high end audio industry. If the vast majority of music is not audiophile recording quality, then why not design a DAC (etc) that can make all music sound the best it can? Why not have a DAC that can intelligently evaluate a recording and determine if it will sound best played in a very resolving way, or to instead enter some other mode that can adjust away from revealing and instead do whatever is necessary to make the mediocre recording sound the best it can? Or if a DAC can’t figure that out itself, to have two buttons (diggity dank & schwag) for the user to decide which mode is best?
It seems to me that any technology that renders so much music, perhaps most music, as unlistenable has missed the essence of music exploration.
To be honest I’ve not been greatly impressed with Schiit components I’ve heard and avoid cheap tube preamps, having lived with Decware components since '97 or so. They’re in another league. The ZROCK2 will be most likely to fix your problem, giving you adjustable eq and gain in important ways, and not futz with your sound otherwise. I think the Schiit won’t accomplish this and may not improve your sound. Just my take from my experience.
I appreciate the creative reply! Now let us destroy it 
There are a number of issue with your analogy. Music is very different than your art analogy. You focused on laser eye treatment, which would be akin to a physical health issue, and if related more accurately to music, it would be akin to having loads of wax removed from one’s ears. Making the issue about some physical ailment, and it’s treatment, misses the entire issue of how our audiophile, extra revealing systems make the vast majority of music, difficult to listen to.
With music there can be Van Gogh level of artistry, that level of creative genius, yet for a variety of reasons it’s recorded in a way that does not capture that genius. The genius is there, but the recording technique is less than. An ultra revealing audiophile system makes the listening experience of that genius yet worse. Recognizing that fundamental truth, I’m merely exploring different ways to get around the issue.
Yes, I’m knowingly staring audiophile dogma in the eye. I’m knowingly questioning a long held audiophile belief system.
You asked for examples. I have DSD recordings of “Come Away With Me”, “Kind of Blue”, “Take Five”, “Garcia & Grisman” and Nat King Cole’s “After Midnight” - among others. These recordings are stunning. I’d call them audiophile recordings.
The other day I tried to listen to a couple of long time favorites, recordings that prior to my PS Audio days, always sounded great. One is “Variations On Mozart” (Windham Hill) and “Out Beyond Ideas” by David Wilcox. They sounded terrible!
My eyes don’t need laser, and my ears are genuinely free of wax. It’s not a physical issue. It’s that the recording quality on the DSJ is revealed for what it is, mediocre. But the artistic quality is there. It’s not bad art, just art that’s limited by the recording studio not seeming to care or know better.
I want to figure out how best to access that artistry. I’m certain getting a yet more resolving system is not the answer. What is so shocking about wanting to figure out how to best explore the other 99.9% of music in the world, in a way that’s sonically acceptable?
I realize those recordings will never be transformed into the “A” list above. But I do know they suck on the DSJ. What’s so “perverse” about seeking creative ways to hear music in the best light possible? A revealing system simply does not do that. It elevates “A” list material to marvelous heights, and kicks the other 99.9% straight to the curb.
There must be a better way! Please join me @stevensegal as we rise as one to overthrow the audiophile overloads and set the music free 
We will simply have to agree to disagree on this point. A bad recording is a bad recording. The goal of quality kit is to play the recording as clearly and accurately as possible. There is no obligation for manufactures to produce kit designed to make a bad recording sound great. (EQs, etc. aside)
Musicality [meaning the quality and artistry of the work or the performance(s) of the artist(s)] is my first priority for musical enjoyment, followed very, very closely by the quality of the recording. These two factors trump all. There is no making of a silk purse out of a sow’s ear in this regard.
Cheers.
1 Like
I will absolutely take this to heart. Thank you. The Schiit Freya+ gets glowing reviews from Darko, Guttenberg, and the various Toronto YouTube reviewers. I’ve been hesitant because Schiit does not have a long time tube pedigree. I thought about getting a Linear Tube Audio MZ2 as a preamp, but the manufacturer informed me it would reduce body and weight, even though it’s made by a genius and of super high quality.
I thought about the Decware CSP3 preamp, but it doesn’t seem to have a remote control for the volume. I’m not clear that any of the Decware integrated amps or preamps have remotes. They are beautiful pieces, but I really need a volume remote.
1 Like
I agree, it’s not the obligation of manufactures. For me, it’s more of a missed opportunity. I find the audio supremacist approach to be lacking in creativity. That only the pure recordings can sound good, and that’s just that. Given the vast vast majority of recordings will never reach that supremacist level, I’d like to see high end manufactures embrace the challenge. I appreciate that Decware appears to understand the issue and has offered to do something creative about it.
For me, any solution that makes 99.9% of music sound yet worse, is a solution lacking on many levels.
There’s always the ear buds or cheap headphones playing mp3 (or other lossy files) option.
It’s good enough for millions of folks and 99.9% of the music you listen to would be reproduced at more or less the same level of quality. 
For me, the missed opportunity is of those that offer poorly produced and/or poorly recorded music (in whatever format or resolution) to the public. I believe the “fault”, if we want to criticize, and the opportunity is of/available for music producers, not music reproducers.
Then again, @lonson has suggested a piece of kit that strikes me as made to order for the very type of “missed opportunity” you speak of, if I understand you correctly.
Moving on/cheers,
Scott
Am I strange that the other 99.9% sound awful on average consumer gear?
Modern music IMO does not sound better in a car, ear buds, or in general poor systems. I have only heard better amplification improve the situation and better DAC’s are more musical than cheap DAC’s. My Macbook does not make modern music sound better with its internal DAC… quite the contrary.
Also, while I have not had the opportunity to demo the DSJ… it is DSD based. Initial reviews described a softness to the sound… this makes no sense that it would be incompatible with modern recordings in the other 99.9%… I would argue the opposite is true. The ESS DAC in the SGCD and Strata would be less forgiving of modern music due to the “Sabre” edgy sound! When I have toyed with DSD conversion via Audirvana, DSD softens the harshness - not increase it.
1 Like
Are you stating only 0.1% of recordings can be enjoyed on an accurate playback system?
That is, 99.9% of recordings sound worse on an accurate system than on a mediocre system?
I have both the CSP3 (with 25th Anniversary mods) and the ZTPRE. They are both excellent preamps. The ZTPRE does have a remote option, I have that on mine, it’s not cheap but it works wonderfully.
These are excellent preamps BUT if you want the flexibility to tailor the sound of recordings that need some help. . . The ZROCK2 is designed to help and does a great job.
1 Like
I do apologize for my use of 99.9%. Given I lack the capacity to listen to all recorded music in the world and create an extensive study of precisely what percentage of music sounds best on a revealing system vs a mediocre system, I do concede that the 99.9% is not scientifically accurate 
It was more of a guestimation. A way of, perhaps a bit exaggerated, to illustrate one of the problems I have with my venture into a more revealing system. Setting the entire world of music recordings aside, I can say that in my personal use, as stated, a significant number of beloved recordings that sounded great prior to the DSJ, now sound much worse. To be clear, I absolutely love what the DSJ does with fabulous recordings, the DSJ is going nowhere. Just poking around for a solution. And the Decware Z-Rock may fit the bill.
That’s very interesting. My thought was in part to add a tube preamp to help bring more life into the system. My short list has been the Schiit Freya+, Rogue RP1, and the Linear Tube Audio MZ2. I read reviews of tube gear and it’s very alluring.
I read a bit on the Decware forums and noticed that in the early days you declared there was absolutely no way you’d add another box like the ZRock, and now you have 3. That speaks volumes.
I now anoint you my tube guru, namaste 
As an example, to help me understand, beyond the ability to connect multiple sources, how do the sonic characteristics of the CSP3 differ from the ZRock 2? I could add the CSP3 and use the DSJ for volume control.
My simplistic thinking was that the ZRock 2 only has one tube, while the Freya+ and Linear Tube Audio (and CSP3) have 4 tubes each. 4 tubes must be better than 1 tube.
The reason I ask, and hyperbole is no problem, is if the vast majority of recordings sound worse with the introduction of a more accurate DAC I suspect there is something fundamentally wrong with the system as a whole.
“Wrong” in this case meaning the system is not working for you.
While I am in the camp where better means more faithful/accurate reproduction of the waveform, for others better means euphonic. If this is of interest, I suggest not trying to find a warmer DAC but instead looking for more euphonic amplification and speakers, and/or outside processing. The ZROCK looks to be absolutely perfect for your needs.
2 Likes
Ok, based on how bad you make this situation out to be, you must have a long list of recordings that sound bad. provide us with a list so we can try to track down some of these recordings to listen to on our own equipment.
Maybe you just happen to have the worst masterings of these “bad” recordings and a better master would fix the “problem”.
2 Likes
Haha! I’m not organized enough to create a list of bad recordings!
It’s more of a generalization of my audiophile experience than a scientific study. You mentioned that your gear is very honest and revealing. That it reveals the true nature of a recording, be it class A or mediocre. The system tells it like it is.
For me, I’d prefer a system that is utterly honest and revealing for fabulous recordings, and is content to fabulously lie about mediocre recordings in a way that makes them sound better. I realize that’s audiophile heresy, where manipulating the original recordings brings forth a witch trial. Yet truth be told, the entire stereo is basically one big lie to begin with, it’s not real, the musicians aren’t actually there, it’s all some sort of modern halucination. I’d prefer sweet lies to the cruel truth of a given recording.