Is the new firmware still com8ng out this week?
alrainbow said Has anyone who owns the DS and a PWT done any comparisons in sound quality. As in USB and PWTI have played a little with the different outputs of the PWT and S/PDIF (coax) from a server, as well as a couple of other transports to the DSD. I found, as Ted claims, there is little/no difference in the inputs.
I have not tried USB as I rarely use it as input. Once in a great while I connect a laptop after making a on-location concert recording, but I have not recorded using a laptop in a good while.
Just tried âdirect to the power ampâ. Unlike the PWD, which was unlistenable without the preamp (PassLabs x1), the DS sounds indeed âcleanerâ. The switchable cable impedance (Iâve got MIT Oracle cables with tunable network boxes) does make sense/difference now.
Itâs getting more interesting now. Need to get my Bridge replaced, though. As far as I remember the Bridge sounds better, than a plain built-in laptop USB with a plain printer USB-cable. Most likely my current USB setup masks differences, that should be more pronounced.
Current setup (PassLabs x1 preamp is currently disconnected)
Laptop - (USB) - DS - (MIT Oracle 3.2 XLR) - PassLabs x250 - (MIT Oracle 3.1) - Martin Logan Summit + PPP
Whatâs wrong with your bridge ?
Alekz said Just tried "direct to the power amp". . . . The switchable cable impedance (I've got MIT Oracle cables with tunable network boxes) does make sense/difference now.If you would, please elaborate on this. I am curious what you experienced/determined.
Elk saidAlekz said Just tried "direct to the power amp". . . . The switchable cable impedance (I've got MIT Oracle cables with tunable network boxes) does make sense/difference now.If you would, please elaborate on this. I am curious what you experienced/determined.
Some MIT cables have switches that adjust cables according to the input impedance of the component. For example, my cables have 3 settings: 5-50 kOhm, 40-100 kOhm, 90-up kOhm. When I replugged the cable from the preamp (the 40-100kOhm setting) to the power amp, the sound was a bit boomy (âbathroomâ or âbarrelâ sound). Changing to 5-50kOhm fixed that and made the sound more âbalancedâ.
rogerdn said What's wrong with your bridge ?It's dead
Alekz saidSome MIT cables have switches that adjust cables according to the input impedance of the component.
. . .
Thanks.
Are the effects of switching the impedance more or less pronounced while going direct from the DS into the amp v. using a pre?
Iâm going direct to my Qol and then Pass Amp. I sold my Preamp.
I am currently running MY DS direct into a tube amp. The lower gain of the DS than the PWD helps a great deal.
The sound is significantly better than through my preamp. There was little difference with an SS amp.
I suspect what works best is based on a combination of gain structure, relative impedance, all sorts of variables. It is fun to experiment.
Elk saidI did not try to change the switch position while the DS was connected to the preamp, but I did it earlier with other sources (the Transporter, PWDv1). I do not remember that I noticed anything or at least it was not obvious. I wonder if it's the DS transformers what makes the difference.Alekz said Some MIT cables have switches that adjust cables according to the input impedance of the component. . . .Thanks.Are the effects of switching the impedance more or less pronounced while going direct from the DS into the amp v. using a pre?
Actually, it was my wife (she was reading and did not know what I was doing) who said:âHey, it sounds like a bathroom⌠And now itâs back to normalâ
Oh, another thing. Around 350 hours the ssssibilants changed from sssstinging szszszszszsz⌠to more shshshshshsh. Now after 500+ the "s"es sound more natural. It is entirely possible that part of the problem was (still is?) related to the cheap USB parts. More experiments needed.
And yes, the DS makes you rethink your system.
And yes, the DS makes you rethink your system.+1. I'm nearing the end of the great interconnect replacement exercise now that the DS has replaced the PWD.
Thanks, Alekz. It remains fascinating what othersâ experiences are.
Another DS review is online :
http://www.audiostream.com/how-is-ted-coding-the-fpgaent/ps-audio-directstream-dac
rothosand saidPaul, your comment stated that the upgrade could be had for as little as $3,995.Another DS review is online :
http://www.audiostream.com/how-is-ted-coding-the-fpgaent/ps-audio-directstream-dac
Did you intend to ignore the kit pricing.
Bill
rothosand saidExtremely vaguely formulated:Another DS review is online :
http://www.audiostream.com/how-is-ted-coding-the-fpgaent/ps-audio-directstream-dac
âA DAC like the comparably priced Luxman DA-06 (see review) puts more meat on musicâs bones and I would not object to someone saying it sounds more analog as compared to the DirectStream DAC. Compared to the less expensive Auralic Vega (see review) I found that the Vega also sounded more colorful and more lit up up top. I also would not argue if someone were to suggest that the DirectStream DAC was more neutral in a positive way taking personal preference into account.â
If I understand correctly, it can be reworded to âthe Luxman sounds more meaty and analog and the Auralic more colourful, but itâs up to you to decide what you like moreâ
Iâm concerned about MLâs reference to the FW update as being something like a âpresence controlâ. I donât think it is (in beta testing). If anything I believe it restores the full harmonic balance to the music. People may read this and be predisposed to thinking this is what Ted was intending to do. Based on what Iâm hearing it is not.
Firmware should be released this week as promised. Indeed, I forgot the kit pricing when I replied to Michael. 
Thanks for bringing up.
I think there is some hedging⌠Just look at the Auralic Vega banner running down the page!