Wow, you played the Borat card. Thanks for lifting your veil.
Gidday everyone,
I am a PS Audio owner - I own the DS DAC sr and the entire stellar stack which I run through some MA platinums. I also substitute the M700âs for a dm series Halcro amp I own. I am based in Melbourne, Australia. I am relatively new to audiophile culture , having embraced the hobby only last year, and was surprised to later find, my chosen system unexpectedly matched Robert Deutschâs reference system in Stereophile.
I have alot to lose having spent more than $15K on PS Audioâs products and I shouldnât have to entirely reconcile the criticism by doubling down on the way they sound to the ear.
I was initially very dismayed to see ASRâs measurements, but after going to the Melbourne Hi FI show on the weekend and listening closely to 350K systems such as the Kharma speakers running a full Chord Dave/upscaler stack, renewed my enthusiasm for the sound the DS produces ( in my opinion better) , even if it canât fully resolve 24 bit sound (why I bought it!), or has high transformer output distortion.
It is clear to me that even if ASRâs technical claims are true, it only contributes a very marginal effect on the overall quality of the product. I think even Amir could only pick up âdeficienciesâ with the Stellar with very close listening and even then only one âsome tracksâ. It seems Stereophile had the same schizoid conclusion with their technical analysis, after raving about the DS DACâs sound in their official review.
What does this mean?
Perhaps the overwhelming strength of the FPGA concept is such, traditional technical quality concerns become firmly subordinate to overwhelming advantages of this technology.
It also raises another question for, Paul particularly . If the generated energy signals inside your machines are so distorted, but still sound so âgoodâ,overall and are irrelevant to human hearing, why then does PS Audio sell a whole range of very expensive power regeneration equipment aimed at reducing the last 1-3% of distortion in the electrical supply itself by generating a perfect electrical signal?
Shouldnât every post be a winner?
The last question it raises is that even if PS Audioâs products work spectacularly well at the end user level have they scored a major own goal with these unnecessary technical flaws, however âminorâ that diminish a product in unnecessary ways and undermine the credibility of a company that does in its marketing, claim the mantle of absolute technical excellence.
I think that given JA identified the same technical issues in a Stereophile review no less puts the onus on PS Audio to issue an unequivocal reply to ASR.
1 Like
Hi Wicky, Another Melbourne based user here.
-
Ted has responded to the technical issues raised by ASR in this thread many times.
He is the designer of the DAC. I canât think of anyone more qualified to respond.
Please take the time to read his explanations. If you donât want to wade through the entire thread, take a look at Tedâs response to abeiklouâs summary (post 432). I think it encapsulates the issues quite well.
If you have specific concerns or questions, please raise them here. Ted has been extraordinarily generous with his time on these forums and I feel confident in saying he will respond if there is anything new to add. -
Sure PS Audio marketing can push the hyperbole meter to 11, but I have not seen them claim âthe mantle of absolute technical excellenceâ for the DAC we are discussing.
-
I donât know about you, but I purchase my stereo gear to listen to. As a consequence, I am way more interested in how it sounds than how it measures.
And on the subject of measurements. Would you agree that they need to be understood and interpreted correctly? As Ted says, âMeasurements can be very useful for verifying that things are working right, but this whole thread is an example of people not understanding what measurements really mean (or purposefully misrepresenting what they mean.)â. -
I think itâs a gross exaggeration to say âthe generated energy signals inside your machines are so distortedâ. Itâs also a bit OTT to say the areas where the DS DAC measures less well than some competitors are âunnecessary technical flawsâ. In what way are they unnecessary? Iâm sure Ted would love to know
-
There are better measuring DACs. So what? Iâm 100% confident that there are better measuring amps, speakers & turntable systems than what I own. Iâm not bothered. You pay your money and make your choice.
-
'Carna Blues!
Regards
Mark
6 Likes
IMHO, just because itâs possible to make a measurement - and make it to a ridiculous level of precision - (a) does not mean that the right parameter is being measured in the first place (i.e one that correlates to how our ear/brain mashup perceives reproduced sound); and (b) does nothing to establish the presence or absence of a critical threshold beyond which further reduction of a parameter that is audible is detectable to a listener.
Two unrelated topics shed some perspective if one is able to read between the lines: One being the thread on Iconoclast cables. The designer (Galen) is painfully clear on what is being measured and how those measurements relate to sonics, in theory, but is also up front that differences in conductor types exhibit different sonic signatures that thus far are not subject to measurements that offer explanation.
Secondly, Stereophile recently published an interview with Nelson Pass, in which he explains how the introduction of second-order harmonics alters the perception of soundstage and how this has influenced his designs.
The best designs seem to spring from an unbounded curiosity to listen, measure, listen, and accept outcomes that defy explanation at the moment.
5 Likes
I already provided an unequivocal reply for PSA with a detailed graph that would that the folks at ASR could relate to. Unfortunately I donât represent PSA in any way. I think thatâs why Elk deleted it. I would love to repost it though. I know Emeir would really appreciate it.
I do not recall deleting any graph.
Edit: Found it. Another mod deleted it as inappropriate. I had not seen it until now. Do not repost it.
Ok - but it was such an informative graphâŚ
2 Likes
Hi Mark,
I had a close read of the ASR Thread. AmirM deals with Tedâs rebuttal to his measurement criteria - that you cite in quite a bit of depth quite directly, point by point. If it is true - and admittedly I cannot follow much of the technical specifics- BUT it deserves a clear reply.
What is interesting is that JA in stereophile found similar issues, but believed something very good, and perhaps undefined, was happening âsonicallyâ, that couldnât be found in the engineering measurements. The two are not mutually exclusive, fixing the latter should also improve the former is the logic of both AmirM and JAâs (later) reviews. Both the recipe, and the âproof of the puddingâ - eating it - is important
It runs to the core of what is a âHi-Fiâ product?
Whilst I am happy with my product, for me it does raise questions.
You didnât answer my point about why power regeneration is so important, if engineering and measurements of sinewave purity donât matter.
I also have been following this thread closely, and found it interesting. I have no PS Audio product. I have listened to a few of the DACs reviewed on the ASR site.
To refer to âerrorsâ or even âflawsâ in the product is disingenuous and misleading at best (I am assuming you are genuine, and not here to troll). There are different products, with different design philosophies, choose which one you want.
Sounds like you have, you say you are happy with your product, but still would think twice before buying again, why?
Bear in mind I doubt you would get designers of most of the DACs on ASR to even reply to an email, let alone explain in detail, with good humour, in the face of repeated trolling on a site such as this, their design decisions and priorities.
3 Likes
Hi Joma0711,
Why is it disingenuous and misleading, if it is has been identified by two reviewers who have laid out a case logically and reasonably transparently using repeatable tests.
Whether the competition would reply to criticism, well what does it owe to their customers - who are well informed generally? I suspect they absolutely would and vociferously were it any luxury brand such as McIntosh, or AudioResearch with prices to match in niche market of well informed enthusiasts who care to look beneath the surface.
I am disappointed that this could be construed as âtrollingâ or bad faith. Just to reiterate, I am invested in this as a loyal customer and have accepted as influence, the expert reviews of these products, when I bought my second PS Audio product.
No I donât think you are trolling (unlike one or two on here)
But I am confused by why you would considwer not buying a future product when you are happy with the sound of the current one.
Well errors or flaws suggests a mistake in design, rather than actual design priorities - PS Audio know how it measures, and how it sounds, and that it is working as designed, therefore they are not errors or flaws, just design priorities manifesting. That was my take on all the language used anyway
A typical misunderstanding on the part of the ASR folks is in this example:
They berate the design for using transformers. âWhy would you use a transformer in a HiFi product if you didnât need toâ or words to that effect.
I come from a professional recording studio, and electronics test and measurement background, where the most highly praised recordings (especially of acoustic, but also electronic music) tend to come from studios that utilise the very highest quality of recording console, mic amps, etc.
The vast majority of these use transformers in at least one place, especially mic amps. They donât need to, and the measurement may show some effect from this, but they sound the âbestâ in most peopleâs ears and always have done.
The cheaper budget studio equipment almost never has transformers, measures well, but doesnât generally produce such revered recordings.
So ASRâs premise that use of a transformer is foolish is simply wide of the mark.
Just one example of why measurements are not everything
3 Likes
I think AmirM addressed this head on on in his thread. He stated that the talent and sound engineers already added âdistortionâ to their product as they saw fit via their equipment. He then made the valid point that asked why on earth you would want to add to that through playback equipment. What is the âhigh fidelityâ of equipment to the artists vision, and not the other way around.
It is rebuttals like this that require a full direct, collected reply.
I am curious about the bit resolution of the DS Sr as measured by JA. I do not fully understand the technology so I apologize if I am âmuddying the watersâ by asking . . . If the DS can resolve up to 17 bits of resolution what is the point of feeding it 24/192 or DXD 352?
I am interested because, I currently utilize the Bridge2, which does not support DXD 352 or DSD rates higher than DSD64, and I would like to experience both. I was considering trying the DS in a USB setup in order to experience the higher resolution files, but if the machine itself is only capable of resolving 17 bits I donât see the point in trying. Am I missing something here . . .?
Itâs worth noting that just because a recording or dac says itâs 24 bit doesnât mean they can reproduce 24 bits.
From what i understand very few dacs, if any, are able to reproduce even 21 bits. The subsequent electronics just arenât quiet enough. The real advantage of a 24 bit pipeline comes in the production side of things where you can have multiple tracks mixed together and have less noise that would be compounded together.
Then thereâs your other electronics and your room that would also limit the resolution youâd actually be able to hear because of noise.
I canât help but to think of this copy of Stereophile magazine from 1994. Is one design better than the other? Your own ears are the best arbiter for any given audio product.
2 Likes
Those who can create, create them.
Those who cannot create measure the creations of others so that they may feel superior to the creators.
6 Likes
Iâm really hoping this thread doesnât continue to dive back down the deep dark rabbit hole it explored hundreds of posts earlier. We should remember the outstanding post from @delillotelfer as quoted above.
1 Like
5 Likes
Hi Wicky,
I didnât respond to your comment regarding power regenerators because I couldnât see the relevance or connection to the DS DAC measurements discussion. But Iâll give it a shot
Firstly - You are the only one claiming measurements of sinewave purity donât matter.
I donât think questioning the validity, relevance, methodology or meaning of ASRâs measurements taken at or near the noise floor of the DAC means that I have to accept that measurements of sinewave purity donât matter. Not at all. Thatâs simply not logical.
Sinewave stability and purity does matter. I discovered that myself with the P3 regenerator I purchased. I found the sound quality of my prior DAC (Meridian MS600) was vastly improved when powered by the P3. Not much improvement, if any, for the phono pre-amp and line pre-amp sadly.
For arguments sake, letâs say:
- The THD of the incoming AC is 5%.
- The P3 has an output THD of 0.5%.
- The P20 has an output THD of 0.05%
Would you say that because there are better measuring regenerators out there then that means that the P3 is flawed? Or that the THD of the P3 is unnecessarily high? Or that the generated output is âso distortedâ? Or that I should question my brand loyalty?
I certainly donât. The P3 is a fraction of the price of a P20. You get what you pay for, right?
Over and out