Paul, I really wasn’t asking about future PS Audio products. I was curious to know what you have learned of the various DA chips that you have researched and tried in the process of working on upcoming DAC products. I know, that is walking a fine line as there may be a tendency to mention the project itself when reminded by a comment on some interesting characteristic of the DA chip.
We know that you are working on the PWD Mk. III and probably a NuWave product as well. I agree that we don’t need to know any details or secrets until they are close to release, for several reasons.
J.P.
edorr said: For once, I disagree. I read the hype, ordered one on 30 day trial, thought it was mediocre, and send it right back (long time ago this).
Absolutely reasonable. The Benchmark was a great buy at the time, but certainly was not the best then or now.
valer_valer said: I'm musician, had my own home studio, which I do not use for almost 15 years ...
So, as a musician or sound engineer, I agree with this statement, but as an audiophile - I don't ...
I'm not referring to home studios or to small project studios, but rather to those that actually make the major recordings most of us listen to. :) Mastering studios in particular typically have spectacular sound, especially those who work with classical.
My main system has better sound than my studio, but neither my equipment nor work rivals that used by the big boys. My studio work, both in front of and behind the microphone, is extensive but only a few recordings with which I have been involved have reached significant distribution.
I have enjoyed many more B&W floorstanders, Pass Labs amps, top line DACs/ADCs, etc. properly setup in a designed and treated room in serious studios than I have come across in the home of audiophiles. Of course, your experience may vary.
Of course, if pro equipment sounds bad - how do so many great recordings get made? :D
Keeping this on track here, I’d be interested to know whether Paul will compare analog volume attenuation on the aesthetix to volume attenuation in the digital domain on the new DAC…
Not trying pick on a brand but I just listened to that dac . Paul’s dac is better no doubt. And is there volume control was not better than the MSB or Paul’s I would of said it. It’s a tube dac and as such is femAle vocal friendly. But it’s presentation is not right at all. The Pwd is better and even, I am not picking or claiming to be a golden ear . But in A B. Setting I can even tell. Now I did hear the cd transport and really did not bother after how the dac sounded. Now maybe there volume presentation is better but I could not tell as the volume was part of it… I can say that the Pwd was fine as the MSB made things not better enough for me to determine a winner . And I used the Pwd at two volume points at 75 and 100 . Now I did not have a dedicated preamp to determine with .
Al. D
stereophilus said: I'd be interested to know whether Paul will compare analog volume attenuation on the aesthetix to volume attenuation in the digital domain on the new DAC.
In this scenario is the Aesthetix in the signal chain each time?
That is, are you interested in an opinion between:
1) the PWD at 100 and using the preamp's volume control, and
2) the preamp at unity gain and controlling the volume with the PWD?
Yes @elk , that is exactly the question I have.
I am not sure I have performed this testing to rigorous enough standards to fit what you want. But here is the process I went through to make the call in the first place.
I put on one of my favorite Reference Recordings. I believe it was from the Showcase CD. I chose this because I normally listen to it at around 80 on the PWD and because of all the info it presents, both spatially and tonally.
The first test was just as I normally listened to it, straight out of the PWD at 80. I then connected the PWD directly into the Aesthetix through balanced interconnects and left the PWD at 80. I then readjusted to Aesthetix volume control to get as close as I could to the original volume level and re-listened to the same track. Thus, the volume control on the PWD was the same and the only difference in the setup was the addition of the preamp or not.
As you all know, for the most part, I preferred the sound of the system with the preamp. The presentation was just a bit more musical, instruments more rounded and less wooden sounding. In the process, however, I lost some of the amazing depth the PWD presented on its own - as if it were simply shortened up. That’s a quick “review” of the differences.
What surprised me more than anything was just how little the Aesthetix added/subtracted to the signal. I really expected a lot more good/bad results. That’s what impressed me about this preamp. It’s super good and if we ever make a preamp again, this will be my benchmark.
I haven’t decided yet if this whole change isn’t due to the extra buffering the preamp is providing. I do have, after all, and extraordinarily long set of interconnects between the source and the amps. Remember, it’s 50 fricking feet of balanced Audioquest cable. I am guessing this really has something to do with the situation.
In Music Room Two I run the PWD straight into the amp. I have tried the same experiment in that room and find the sound preferable without the preamp in that room - which is one of the reasons I am led to believe it has much to do with the extraordinarily long set of interconnects in Music Room One vs. Music Room Two.
I kept the preamp in Music Room One for yet another reason other than the improved sound. Because I test a lot of different equipment, like new DACS and phono stages, the preamp makes it super easy to just switch between sources and that’s a killer benefit for me. In the past I tried to use this method with our old preamp, which wasn’t any slouch, but every decision I made was colored with its sonic attributes: to the point where I found it more instructive to simply go direct and not worry about it.
Lastly, I would say that the differences between the PWD straight into the amp vs. the preamp were small enough that I used my age old trick of evaluation. When all else fails and I can’t really define properly good and bad properties of each and make a decision, I simply play a number of tracks with one setup and then the same with the other setup and choose which one I’d rather live with on a long term basis. Once I do that, the small niggling details I hear with each fade into the background and I just listen and enjoy again.
That’s what I did with the system as it now stands.
paul . the preamp you use is a tube preamp. and as such you say it does not add the tube sound at all ?
al
Thanks, Paul! Very informative.
Correct. This particular tube preamp sounds unlike the tube sound you’re familiar with. Instead it’s neutral, clean and quick, like the PWD itself. Very unusual and why I chose it.
Thanks for clearing that up. I learn here everyday . I have some headphones amps like that , its why i tube roll.
al d
Thanks Paul. Your contributions are, as always, invaluable and much appreciated. I wonder, if it is ever possible for you to try the PWD volume at 100 (volume attenuation with the aesthetix) and compare that with the aesthetix set to maximum gain (volume attenuated with the PWD) as Elk outlined.
Thanks. I am not sure what I’d gain by doing that experiment. Let me think about it. I like to revisit my assumptions and decisions on a “regular” basis - which isn’t all that regular - but from time to time I/we need to do exactly that. For me it’s done in chunks as the interest levels go up and down with changing things. Problem for me, always, is time and space.
Let’s imagine that I did get curious and started examining some of my conclusions. And let’s say that I found something I didn’t like or wanted to change. That requires me to do something about it and that may wind up consuming hours. In other words, a project. It’s probably just me, but I don’t lightly take on anything until I can muster enough space and interest to be in a position to start and finish a project. In my upstairs bathroom there’s a leaky faucet. Drip, drip, drip. I know it needs a $0.10 washer but just looking at the fixture I don’t see how it comes apart. So it sits. If I get the urge for a project, then and only then I’ll tackle it. In the meantime it sits.
I think many of us can relate.
And there is the 50 foot interconnects variable.
Thanks Paul. Your contributions are, as always, invaluable and much appreciated. I wonder, if it is ever possible for you to try the PWD volume at 100 (volume attenuation with the aesthetix) and compare that with the aesthetix set to maximum gain (volume attenuated with the PWD) as Elk outlined.
I haven't heard the aesthetix, but, based on experience of other pre amps, wouldn't this be a fruitless experiment because it would have a higher noise floor at idle and full throttle than the PWD? Or did I misunderstand what you were suggesting?
The thing I need to do is test this myself… As Paul stated, if you go into this experiment and find something, you will want to find out why/how.
The expectation is that a pre-amp with analogue attenuation will sound worse due to added noise. However, who’s to say that the sound of the digital volume attenuation is not compromised in some other way. Best thing to do is test this theory myself.
I can add this .
I recently did a mini dac shoot out .
The speakers were to nola mini grand.
Tube amp. All SE was used for the test.
Bricasti m1 dac with volume control
Pwd’mkii.
aesthetix Romulus with cd and volume control.
Msb with analog volume and input.
I was present and used my Pwd with 243 firmware and transport also USB was used.
I did test the volume control in the ps audio dac directly. And compared this to using the msb internal volume
Control. I did this at 65’ 75’ 85 and 100%.
As it was easy to discern one dac from another and the volume control used for the bricasti against the input
Through the msb.
Clearly the bricasti volume control has issues and absolutely affects the overall sound of the dac. When bypassed and fed through the msb it was better easy to hear as soon as it started to play.
I can say not only did the Pwd sound great it did not have any discernible change using the above volume settings. Good audio grade cable were used both analog and digital .
The dacs were also fed USB through a Mac laptop running audivarna.
The msb dac was only used for volume control function as a passive preamp.
The volume control in the laptop was also used it to it had it’s short Cummings but no where near as bad as the bricasti .
By volume control the Pwd mkii was the best , so what ever Paul has implemented it appears to be good to my ears .
Now by sound to my ears the Pwd mkii wins . It has superior sound stage and imaging that stayed in place .
And changed when music changed. To my ears it had a better real sound to the music and was consistent
The . aesthetix had a tube output stage and it was immediately apparent as soon as in played . As I did not know any of these dacs and only my Pwd . I asked if it had tubes and it did . It made female sound a little deeper and one artist sound better with this change . But this quickly wore thin as when male vocals seems to deep , almost sound from the chest with some vocals. The other oddness from this dac was the fact it seem to play some frequencies better than others . What I mean by this is . Some parts of the music sounded like you were closer to the music then other parts . I have never heard a dac do this before. And I was told it was the tubes and or dac not having burned in enough . The bricasti did improve when it was in bypass. But agin seemed a little glazed over compared to the Pwd mkii.
Music played was both red book and hirez. Both cd and USB. One last note the bricasti sounded better by USB then it’s spidif input .
Over all I was very happy with my dac. And given the other dacs did cost more money than ps audio,s .
Now I said this as I read how the preamp from aesthetix is talked about as being used as a preamp.
I do not know of this preamp nor have I ever heard it until that day. All equipment was kept plugged in warmed for about an hour or two before being played … I hope this helps someone and I am not claiming to have a golden ears . Or a discernible one for what sounds more like live music. But I did know the recordings used well enough to make this judgement . I did not know all music played either.
Al d
Thanks Al. Interesting comparison. The MSB DAC was not compared?
Not at that time .
And the funny thing was the power amps were tubes as well. But did not seem to effect the sound , and I’m sure they did anyway though . But that tubed dac sure did , and not good in my opinion either it changed to whole sound of the music.