Hi Ted/Paul
would like to find out what’s road map after Torreys? Is there still cards hidden in your sleeve 
Yep, I’ve got at least three new things to try, but it’s way too soon to talk about them.
Ted Smith said Yep, I've got at least three new things to try, but it's way too soon to talk about them.Can't wait for it.
Ted Smith said Yep, I've got at least three new things to try, but it's way too soon to talk about them.Does one of them include a user selectable filter with added midrange richness? (hopeful)
Pretty unlikely - there are no digital filters that play with the response in the unit now. They are all as flat as possible over the audio band. The philosophy in general is to make things as neutral as possible and indeed each time we find something to make it more neutral more people seem to like it. When I first started the project I wasn’t looking forward to voicing things, but as it turned out being as technically correct as I could at each juncture produced the best sound.
Further I don’t think that a linear operation (e.g. filtering) can add the kind of midrange richness that you are talking about. I suspect that you want some added distortion which, once again I work to lower with each release.
…
adriaan said FYI: I really like DSD with Torreys, it is much better than previous releases. I think the noise floor with Torreys is much lower compared to previous releases.Thanks. The noise proper only measures a little lower (a few dB in band, a few more out of band), but there's certainly less jitter which makes quite a difference IMO and in Torreys Final low level signals are a little more linear which can't hurt.
Ted Smith said .....Further I don’t think that a linear operation (e.g. filtering) can add the kind of midrange richness that you are talking about. I suspect that you want some added distortion which, once again I work to lower with each release.
Ted, I think there could be two different possible demands, one could be a vinyl-like “distortion”, producing a certain harmonic structure vinyl listeners cherish. I think this probably makes no sense to add into a digital design as you say and is not wanted by most non-vinyl listeners anyway.
Ok, some producers add tube stages to their DAC’s, probably for a similar effect and tube haters usually argue the same way, that tubes (among other effects) just produce harmonic distortion, no one really “should want”. And anyway tubes are very well regarded commonly and now even used i.e. by PSA within the amps. However, as I said, I understand and agree, using added harmonic distortion to a DAC most probably makes no sense (if it’s positive-efficiently possible at all).
The other demand of few/some/quite some DS owners I think really just could be a little different level of certain frequency areas to give another weight to the sound, independent of or other than any added "distortion’. This could probably be done with a linear operation and optional, maybe even multi-optional and therefore not mandatory.
jazznut said The other demand of few/some/quite some DS owners I think really just could be a little different level of certain frequency areas to give another weight to the sound, independent of or other than any added "distortion'. This could probably be done with a linear operation and optional, maybe even multi-optional and therefore not mandatory.Not that I disagree in principle with what I think you (and yacheah) are trying to say, but I really do believe it's more complicated than that. People have reported that various beta's and released versions have varying amounts of bass, midrange, highs, etc. and I don't dispute what they hear and report: even so, all of the betas and releases have the same flat FR from, say, 10Hz or 20Hz to 20kHz within +/- 0.01dB. I do know that (at least with the current FPGA code) adding another filter to do a little "optional" FR tailoring would add jitter and noise to the output (as does any non-trivial addition), but that doesn't mean that that will always be the case. (The problem isn't that filtering PCM takes too many resources as much as filtering late enough in the processing chain to also filter the DSD inputs takes interesting resources and add more noise, jitter...) I can say that none of the engineered changes in the base response from release to release affect the FR but instead do (variously) involve phase response (group delay), THD, jitter, noise, etc..
[edit:]
Not that you were suggesting it, but for those who missed my previous posts about adding a tube to the DS: there’s no architectural place to put a tube, nor any need for any function that a tube would provide. The DS needs an output that’s linear to at least 200MHz, not the strong point of tubes, it doesn’t need current or voltage amplification (it uses a passive output stage, i.e. it has all of the current and voltage it needs by the simple virtue of switching one power rail or the other to the outputs.)
If one should start to ‘flavor’ the DS sound, then you are really entering a minefield. It’s like high fidelity with sugar on the top. I prefer not to do this every day of the week and twice on Sundays!
Ted Smith said . . . FR from, say, 10Hz or 20Hz to 20kHz within +/- 0.01dB.Mind boggling.
. . .
There are tube buffers on the market if you want to deliberately add a tube sound (and you can roll tubes to further tweak the sound).
You can also use a plug-in or stand alone EQ to dial in your own version of Harbeth’s Gundry dip (a mild depression from 1kHz to 4kHz) if you want a frequency response which exhibits a richer sound.
IMO. neither should be deliberately introduced into the sound of a source component.
Query for those who want a richer sound: Do you happen to be listening in the nearfield?
Is there any way to play a multichannel DSD file over 3xDirectStream (or DSJr) using a computer?
jazznut saidTed, I think there could be two different possible demands, one could be a vinyl-like “distortion”, producing a certain harmonic structure vinyl listeners cherish. I think this probably makes no sense to add into a digital design as you say and is not wanted by most non-vinyl listeners anyway.
Ok, some producers add tube stages to their DAC’s, probably for a similar effect and tube haters usually argue the same way, that tubes (among other effects) just produce harmonic distortion, no one really “should want”. And anyway tubes are very well regarded commonly and now even used i.e. by PSA within the amps. However, as I said, I understand and agree, using added harmonic distortion to a DAC most probably makes no sense (if it’s positive-efficiently possible at all).
The other demand of few/some/quite some DS owners I think really just could be a little different level of certain frequency areas to give another weight to the sound, independent of or other than any added "distortion’. This could probably be done with a linear operation and optional, maybe even multi-optional and therefore not mandatory.
I agree. I think more weight to the sound would work for me.
Elk saidQuery for those who want a richer sound: Do you happen to be listening in the nearfield?
Nah no nearfield listening for me. My system sounds better played loud. The low gain of the DS is already a problem in this regard as I need to turn the volume up.
I’d venture that nearfiled listening with the DS wouldn’t work - already I want more midrange richness, with nearfield listening and lower volumes there would be less of that and less of everything all round.
DoggieHowser said Is there any way to play a multichannel DSD file over 3xDirectStream (or DSJr) using a computer?People do it, I suspect mostly with a multichannel digital audio computer adapter, there are a lot of MC adapters out there that do multichannel A/D and D/A thru USB (or Firewire), but ones that just do multichannel USB -> 3 x S/PDIF or 3 x AES/EBU, etc. are a little harder to find. They are often a little more work to setup for non-digital audio editing software, e.g. foobar2000 or JRiver, but people do it.
After having had the pleasure of visiting PS Audio and being shown around by Duncan, I can tell you that based on what I heard there and what I hear here, especially with the LANRover in place, there is no lack of midrange anything. Superlative sound quality, if your audio equipment is up to snuff. The LANRover is a big deal to me, but I guess I’ll write something about it on the other forum.
yacheah said Nah no nearfield listening for me. . . . I'd venture that nearfiled listening with the DS wouldn't work - already I want more midrange richness, with nearfield listening and lower volumes there would be less of that and less of everything all round.Listening in the nearfield does not decrease midrange, but can lead to a perception of too much energy around 2kHz; that is, too much upper midrange.
I suspect for whatever reason your system is a bit pronounced in this area. Try a bit of EQ decreasing the energy from 2kHz to 4kHz by 2dB. I bet you will be happier.
Ted Smith saidjazznut said The other demand of few/some/quite some DS owners I think really just could be a little different level of certain frequency areas to give another weight to the sound, independent of or other than any added "distortion'. This could probably be done with a linear operation and optional, maybe even multi-optional and therefore not mandatory.Not that I disagree in principle with what I think you (and yacheah) are trying to say, but I really do believe it’s more complicated than that. People have reported that various beta’s and released versions have varying amounts of bass, midrange, highs, etc. and I don’t dispute what they hear and report: even so, all of the betas and releases have the same flat FR from, say, 10Hz or 20Hz to 20kHz within +/- 0.01dB. I do know that (at least with the current FPGA code) adding another filter to do a little “optional” FR tailoring would add jitter and noise to the output (as does any non-trivial addition), but that doesn’t mean that that will always be the case. (The problem isn’t that filtering PCM takes too many resources as much as filtering late enough in the processing chain to also filter the DSD inputs takes interesting resources and add more noise, jitter…) I can say that none of the engineered changes in the base response from release to release affect the FR but instead do (variously) involve phase response (group delay), THD, jitter, noise, etc…
[edit:]
Not that you were suggesting it, but for those who missed my previous posts about adding a tube to the DS: there’s no architectural place to put a tube, nor any need for any function that a tube would provide. The DS needs an output that’s linear to at least 200MHz, not the strong point of tubes, it doesn’t need current or voltage amplification (it uses a passive output stage, i.e. it has all of the current and voltage it needs by the simple virtue of switching one power rail or the other to the outputs.)
First, thanks much Ted, that you as a worldwide respected professional and genius talk such things about your product with us lightweights!
I also couldn’t follow the tonal differences people heard between the firmware releases. If any, they were very minor to me.
Just a concrete example, which I point out in order to try to understand what could be the thing we talk around:
I had most listening experience with Accuphase players so far (from the old 12k DP75V to the current 21k DP600). Accuphase digital gear I think is known for being on the side of strong tonal colors and a richer sound in comparison to some others on the opposite side.
My vinyl player (mainly due to an exceptional separate and clearly above standard-supply motor/power unit, also very good resonance control and tonearm) always was less rich and more accurate sounding than the Accuphases, with all common strenghts and weaknesses against digital. I never was a friend of a mainly charming, bloomy, covering vinyl sound, but to me vinyl still provides a harmonic structure to the sound, that finally makes it more real (just in what I hear, maybe not in theory).
With the DS DAC I found a digital gear, improving in all aspects towards the Accuphases, especially its typical strength in ambiance and separation, but also very much vinyl like timing and also in being able to shape clearly more tonal shading out of instruments and voices.
So even if I personally have less of a low end richness problem than maybe few others with the DS (which I can compensate quite good with my active speaker leveling if necessary), I wished for a bit more midrange richness and I noticed a very obvious difference between the DS and the previous Accuphase gear. So I easily understand what happens to some, who switched from such gear to the DS with no option to compensate.
As you say, I think it’s more complicated and I really don’t understand, what makes such differences. I certainly believe you that the DS FR is flat in all firmwares.
Equally I believe the Accuphase guys, that their FR is flat as well as their reviewers writing things like:
„The DP-600’s non-invasive soundstage is perfectly aligned with its handling of frequency response, which is both completely linear and a model of integration.“
But at the same time they write:
The new voicing is evident in the DP-600 SACD Player. You can’t fail to take note of its powerful and dynamic low-end alongside the legendary finesse the brand is known for.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue62/accuphase_dp600.htm
So, complicated for me to understand is:
Where does a rich sound or as metioned above „powerful low end“ come from, if at the same time the FR is flat? Why does different digital gear sound very different in tonality if they all claim their FR is flat? Until resolved this means to me, a flat FR does not necessarily mean a flat sound.
Thanks for your patience to try to explain such puzzels.
One of the obvious things missing from a flat FR is the phase response. If the group delay is constant (i.e. the phase of each frequency is such that the filter just looks like a simple time delay) then a flat FR should get close to neutral. If phase response is something else then non-steady state tones will get muffled, e.g. transients will loose their edge/timing.
But Frequency response and phase response are measured with steady state tones.
The next detail is the simple distortions -
there’s time distortion, say small echos or acoustic feedback from the speakers affecting a turntable or the filaments of a tube or (thru a board vibrating) the capacitors in the electronics. Often this is perceived as adding richness if the feedback is in the right frequency ranges. Too much feedback at higher frequencies can detract from clarity and/or affect the sound stage.
there’s frequency distortion: e.g. harmonic distortion can add richness (“tube distortion”) or cause things to be a little harsh (old “transistor radio distortion”), intermodulation distortion is a little more complicated.
Then come less linear distortions - noise, jitter, etc.
If the noise is correlated with the sound then in the best case it can add a little richness at the expense of localization or change the tonal character of the sound, etc. - if it’s not correlated with the sound, but isn’t white it can be confusing to the brain. White noise can be fairly benign.
Jitter spreads each frequency in the audio outwards just a little - the audible effect is hard to characterize. I hear high frequency jitter as a little fuzz on the sound, and some loss of localization of the sound stage. To my mind it’s a big part of what people describe as the “digital sound”. I hear lower frequency jitter as messing with the foundation of the sound - sort of taking some of the realness/life out of the music.
I’m just rambling, but adding distortions digitally really doesn’t give the same audible effect as simply adding a (not quite perfect) tube buffer or putting some base traps in the right places in the room…
What Ted has said here about noise and vibration make sense to me as my system has improved over the years as I’ve done my best to address these issues. And its improvement has been clarity and neutrality.
I have had a tube amplified system most of my life (grew up with my Dad’s and soon realized via playing with instrument amplification that I wanted that in my own stereo system and have had tube pre-amplification and amplification for about twenty-five years in my own stereo systems). I find that with a neutral and revealing source such as the DS or great vinyl playback and neutral speakers selecting tube complements is the best way to add that bit of midrange warmth that one may need, especially in an untreated room. My amp has voltage regulation, voltage rectification, input and power tubes that can be selected and their interaction influences the sound. Many possible shades of sound. Likewise my phono preamp has voltage regulation, voltage rectification input and driver tubes to “roll,” and my OTL based preamp has voltage rectification, input and driver tubes to “roll.” It can be maddening at times, but a lot of sonic tailoring can be implemented.